Template talk:Main/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Indenting.

I really think we should be indenting. It's not in fact ugly, because if it needs to be clear that the text is not really part of the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Widely used utility templates like this one should be frozen (after a time), so they can be relied upon. Modifying such a template is like running a 'bot that makes cosmetic changes to thousands of pages. Mirror Vax 01:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the template to include an indent. I know it may be stressful to the wiki, but I feel that it looks better, I'm not the only one who feels that way, and I think that it will lead to the template being more widely adopted (as it stands, many people just write out the words again themselves). -Lommer | ^talk 01:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

A lot of articles were written before templates, and a lot of editors don't know about templates. (SEWilco 15:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC))

Ok, my edit has been reverted on the grounds that this template is used too frequently to be changed. I wholeheartedly disagree with this as I think it runs contrary to the whole idea of wikipedia — if something isn't good, change it to make it better. As for template usage, I agree with SEWilco and know exactly where you're coming from. I don't think people would take kindly though to us replacing article text with a template if they don't like the new look (i.e. the indenting). That said, can anyone else weigh in on the indenting debate. If I'm alone in thinking that the indenting method is better, then that's fine. Otherwise I really think we should change it.-Lommer | ^talk 20:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

If people can't rely on these little utility templates not changing according to the latest edit war, then they won't (and shouldn't) use them. That's why I suggested a freeze. Because if they are going to change every month, then they are worse than useless. Mirror Vax 21:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I hear your argument, but I still contend that it's a red herring - if the new style is better, it should be adopted. Wikipedia should not be held hostage to past formatting styles just because it's easier. On another note, I just notice the {{seemain|}} template. It's quite clear to me that I'm not the only one to have confused the two, as most usages of {{main}} are incorrect. Also, I'd like to apologize for putting the indent in - I didn't realize that a similar edit had just been reverted (I didn't check the history) and I agree that contentious edits should be resolved here before being implemented so that the template changes minimally. -Lommer | ^talk 22:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

HTML comment for bots

I added a little HTML comment ("main") at the end of the template, so when "subst:" is used there is a marker of the source of the text. This will help bots (and other editors aware of this) to identify the line is associated with Template:main. (SEWilco 05:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Missuse of Main

You cited that the Main template is only used in the top of the article, but in fact, it isn't. It is used like the template Seemain, in the sections of the article. So what's the use of two templates? 500LL 09:33, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this template is misused, but that doens't mean its useless. We just need to edit all those articles into using seemain. -Lommer | ^talk 22:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but the concept of the template "Main" is ever used in an article? 500LL 09:18, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Main is used correctly in places. See Esperanto phonology. (SEWilco 21:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Great templates. Only I just used seemain and main in exactly the opposite way recommended here and find their output greatly confusing. I call one article the main article and the other is the subarticle, but of course the subarticle is the main place for its subject. If the difference is not made clear then they will continue to be misused. Why not say something like "This is a subarticle of {{{1}}}" and "See also the subarticle {{{1}}}" respectively called subarticle and seesubarticle. --MarSch 10:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fabulous idea MarSch! I think the confusion surrounding this template is pretty bad, and anything we can do to clear it up is good. I think you should go ahead and implement it, though maybe would should agree on a draft and then implement that so that Mirror Vax and others don't get upset because we're changing this template too much. And yes 500LL, apparently Main is used in articles (though infrequently). I was surprised to learn that too. -Lommer | ^talk 19:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let's be bold. Template:subarticleof Template:seesubarticle. --MarSch 10:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I like those, and I've changed them a bit. Are we now meant to start switching articles over to those until main and seemain fall out of use? Or should main and seemain become redirects to those? Or should we put those templates' content on main and seemain? I like those template titles better because they're more clear as to what we're doing. On the other hand, if we blank main and turn it into a redirect I'd expect a revolt (or at least a revert-war). How do others think we should proceed? -Lommer | ^talk 00:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we should. Also none of my trials on Esperanto and Austria were reverted/changed. Actually it would be even simpler if we just redirected main and seemain. --MarSch 12:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Before you break a lot, test on at least 20 randomly chosen articles which are presently using Main. (SEWilco 15:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC))

You might also look at Global warming. (SEWilco 15:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I see a lot of potential seesubarticle}}s, but no problems. All these articles are basically about different aspects of global warming. They don't have the backlink to acknowledge this yet though. Do you feel this would be inappropriate? I am not sure if you want me to convert to use of subarticles (and break something) on this article, so I have not done this, though I think it would be easy. It is my hope that this is what most article will look like this when they grow. I'm having a lot of trouble with similar but unlinked articles for which the relationship is unclear. --MarSch 11:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be better to test while risking breaking something than to redirect everything without testing. (SEWilco 14:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I agree with your new templates MarSch, and I find it great. But I think that you should "advertise" it a little (maybe in the Village pump). And another thing, the Template:subarticleof isn't too visible and maybe annoying in the top of the page? maybe it's better to be put on another place.500LL 19:06, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

You think I should advertize use of these templates at VP. I'm trying not to rush this, these new templates are still being tested :) I'm not sure whether you think subarticle}} is too visible at the top or not visible enough, but I'm open to suggetsions and boldness. If you think it usefull you yourself could advertize at VP :) --MarSch 11:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think changing the text of main to something like that in Template:Subarticleof would be the best solution here. At the moment the similarity and lack of specifity in Template:Main makes it so that most people (myself included) don't even realize it is supposed to be different than Seemain. I think that "For a more detailed treatment, etc." is far too verbose for what it is supposed to be. A combination of Template:Subarticleof and Template:Seemain as the two choices would be great and would prevent confusion. --Fastfission 04:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the concept of the "Main" and "Subarticleof", not only because I find it annoying in the top of the page, but it's also confusing. eg: Hip Hop music is a sub-article of Hip hop, but also of Music genre and History of music. We just can't put them all in the top of the article. Neverless, I think wether it's History of Esperanto or Causes of World War I, it's pretty clear for the reader that the first article is a sub of Esperanto and the second of World War I, in addition there's always a link in a sub-article introduction to the main article. So what really is the purpose of the template "Main" and "Subarticleof"? 500LL 18:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Just to put my two cents in, I think there is a bit of a problem with subarticleof as against main. I think that main should be reworded to fix it as not all related articles are subarticles. Subarticles imply a tree based structure, which is very nice and pretty, but, for example, you could hardly consider George Micheal as a subarticle of Wham! since he's more famous now for his own music. Anyway. How about seemain and relatedto or something? I agree things are very unclear, but subarticleof is not the way forward. We need one standard way which main, and seemain almost had, but was just too confusing. -- Tomhab 02:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having two different templates implies a directed structure. I have just made this explicit and non-confusing in naming and wording. If you want to express a symmetric relation such as relatedto then you don't need seemain for this, so I am a bit confused as to what you propose. --MarSch 10:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is not with the template names: the difference between "Subarticleof" and "Seesubarticle" is clear, it's the concept of "Subarticleof" that's disturbing. It implies making a hierachy of all the articles, with the problems that Tomhab cited above. 500LL June 29, 2005 15:52 (UTC)

Yeah sorry meant to reply. My point was that I would much prefer something that was all encompassing. There is no real need to have subarticlepof}} and seemain}} - they should (imo) be merged into one that seemain}} was nearly at. For example using "see more detailed article" and "see more articles of this topic" would be less ambiguous but more useful that the subarticle templates. Make anymore sense? -- Tomhab 29 June 2005 15:57 (UTC)

I think what you are saying is that we really only need one template and that that template should be used to point to more detailed articles, but there is no need to point back from the detailed article. Correct? Would this be fundamentally different from a hierarchy? The only thing I can imagine is if two articles are about tighly related things and they mention eachother as alternatives. This may be usefull _also_, but we should use a third template for this {siblingarticle} or so. This could even grow into a navbox. --MarSch 1 July 2005 12:09 (UTC)

You're missing my point. I suggest we have ONE template for seemain}} and all equivs (such as seesubarticle}} and seesiblingarticle}} (if it comes into existance) etc and ONE template for main}} etc. This would make things simpler than people going "hmmm should I use seemain}} or seesubarticle}}". It is of course just an opinion. -- Tomhab 2 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)

Okay, but I thought you objected to that because it implies a tree structure. What wording do you suggest for the templates that you think are best?--MarSch 2 July 2005 12:38 (UTC)

I wish the template change had been better advertised and discussed before it was implemented. I have seen numerous uses of this template in articles and have used it myself quit a bit. I understand that this use may have been incorrect. However, the problem is that many of these uses on a number of article pages are now incorrect. For example, in American literature, the section on African-American literature says that for more information, see the sub article on African-American lit. The error arises b/c African-American lit is not a sub article--it is a main article. This is true for many of the links that had been using the template. Is there another template I can use in sections of articles that gives the link is to a main article on a subject? The seemain template has the same problem. If not, I think I will go back to the articles I'm working on and simply type in a version of Main article: African-American literature. Thanks for any info. --Alabamaboy 3 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)

Isn't African-American literature also American literature? Isn't that why it is discussed in that article? Considering this I think that African-American literature should be a subarticle of American literature.--MarSch 3 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

It is part of it. It's also a unique and separate genre (see the article for reason why). The reason this template bothers me it because it reduces all of Wikipedia to a few "Main" articles and everything else is a subarticle. For example, is George Washington a subarticle of the American Revolution? I don't think anyone would support this but by the logic of this template this is what would happen. The reason I mention this example is the American Revolution article is an example where this template could be used. Instead, the authors have manually inserted links after the words Main Article in the different article sections. Use of subarticle seems like a slippery slope. Is there another way? Also, please do not label African-American literature as a subarticle b/c this is not technically correct. Best, --Alabamaboy 3 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)

Carriage Return/Newline Padding

I hope everyone agrees with having a line return after main, so that the text that follows it isn't on the same line as Main article: History of Turkmenistan --Berkut 1 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)

the indent colon takes care of that. --MarSch 2 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)

Anyone know how to snip the superfluous newlines that wrap this template (or {{main nopad}} if need be)? Is this a result of "pretty printing" the nested {{if}} templates? See: Dunkirk#History [1] for an example of the current WYSINWYG (What You See Is Not What You Get) behaviour.

chocolateboy 22:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No Consensus on redirect

Redirecting this template is not without debate. Until the issue is resolved using proper channels I have changed it back. This impacts 100s of articles and people, changes the asthetics and layout of many articles, including major ones. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)

Subarticleof ... Vote for Deletion

The idea of making Wikipedia a heirarchal network is disturbing. "Main article" does not imply a heirarchy, it is simply a rhetorical device. Please voice your opionion at the above link. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)

TFD to determine consensus

I have placed {{main}} and {{seemain}} on WP:TFD for the purpose of determining whether they should be kept or redirected as MarSch's desires. Dragons flight July 3, 2005 21:14 (UTC)

template:main and template:seemain

(Moved from User talk:SEWilco)

Hi, I am trying to fix things, but to do that I have to break them, so someone notices them. I cannot do this in another way. Once spotted things can usually be easily fixed, although some people insist on "fixing" this template, instead of choosing a local fix. --MarSch 3 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

• You were advised to test your subarticle theories on several articles rather than breaking many. Which articles did you test on? (provide History links so we can see the diffs) Did you attempt to fix misuse of Main rather than breaking it? (SEWilco 3 July 2005 22:59 (UTC))
• You say "I cannot do this in another way.", but perhaps you don't know all the ways or you should not do it. Several ways have been suggested. (SEWilco 3 July 2005 23:12 (UTC))

MarSch: There is nothing to "fix". Your creating a problem where none exists. Leave the Main/Seemail templates alone, people have voluntarily used them because they like the wording and how they look, it was a shortcut to typing it out, it presented a standard appearance. These templates are voluntary, they are not required. When someone comes along and keeps changing the template, it's a violation of trust and goodwill for over 600 articles, many featured, and thousands of editors. I am moving away from the use of these templates, quickly.

Also your attempting to impose a hierarchal system on Wikipedia, as if thats how things work. Thats not how Wikipedia works, it is not hierarchal, "Main" is used rhetorically, as a word of convienence, there is no actual "Main-Sub" system on Wikipedia, you dont seem to understand that. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)

i give my support to the above statement. "Main" or "seemain" templates are meant to direct the reader's attention to another totally independent article which is so vital to the current article that it warrants one entire secion or at least a subsection in the current article. They should not be deleted but restored to their former status. --Plastictv 4 July 2005 03:07 (UTC)

Perhaps you should comment in the TFD.[2] (SEWilco 5 July 2005 07:05 (UTC))

TFD

• Per consensus on the TFD vote (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/July_2005, {{seemain}} now redirects here. It may still be useful to reword this one. Radiant_>|< 12:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

< br / >

I've added < br / > to the template to force a break after the text. PS I won't be monitoring this page for comments. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• I think there presently is an implied break after templates, but it seems reasonable to specifically include one on templates where a break is required. (SEWilco 16:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC))

See main article

I believe indented See main article looks more professional than un-indented Main article. Comments, please. —Cantus…☎ 04:13, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please get a consensus before changing the template, it has a long history of being a certain way. Although I dont know why anyone would ever choose to use this template since it changes almost daily. Stbalbach 04:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, do you agree or not with my changes? —Cantus…☎ 05:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Indented but no "See": I prefer indented for this element, but don't tell the reader to See something. (SEWilco 14:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC))

• I think changing this template mid-stream is a dis-service to all the Wikipedians who voluntarily choose to use it.. kinda like pulling the rug out. If you dont like how it looks/reads, then dont use the template. Templates are not mandatory, it's just a short-cut to typing it out. If you keep changing the template, it will drive people away from using it (I, for one, no longer use this template, but try to keep it stable since so many articles seem to have a misplaced trust in the system). Also, I personally prefer the simple unbolded indented 2-words, and dont think we need to tell people what they should do, or put it in flashing lights. But more importantly, thats how this template was originally created, and has spent the majority of its life, and thus how the majority of people who choose to use it did so as. Stbalbach 15:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'd prefer unindented "Main article: xxx" - Fredrik | talk 00:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with this. Regardless of style, someone should make sure {{main2}} looks the same. K1Bond007 19:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• I like the template just the way it is--indented with the words "Main article." Do not change it. I also agree with Stbalbach's comment that if the template keeps getting changed, people will not keep using it. I myself am in this camp. If the template gets changed again, I will drop it from every article I edit and manually type in the words Main article:Link. --Alabamaboy 14:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Changes

I've unindented the template and added bold to make it stand out. Comments? --Neutrality^talk 18:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. See my comments above about this template and making changes to the template without a broad consensus. Stbalbach 18:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

You have to have a substantive object to the specific change, not a generalized opposition to making any changes whatsoever. To say so is anti-wiki; the burden for proving consensus is on the remover or the reverter, not on the person who added the material or made the change. Neutrality^talk 18:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Ill change it to somthing slightly different tomorow and the burden will be on you to get consensus to change it back: your logic and interpretation of the rules are flawed. Now, you want specifics: this template has traditionally been the same for almost its entire life. It has precedence. 1000s of editors have choosen to use it based on its traditional appearance. If you change it mid-stream without first getting consensus your pulling the rug out from people. In addition, it sets a precedent for the template to continually be changed on a weekly (daily?) basis, the end result is editors stop using it because it is unstable, at whims and mercy of whoever wants to change it (which is historically been a problem). Let me ask you somthing: if you dont like the way it looks, why do you use it in your articles? Why not just hand-code it, or use another template instead? Stbalbach 19:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality, it is unWiki to change a template when a number of people are calling for censensus to be reached first on the issue. See Wikipedia:Consensus for more on how to reach consensus. If you are so set on formatting the template your way, create a new template. If people adopt it, then it will be used. People adopted this template because of the style and formatting it had. To change it changes 1000s of pages. --Alabamaboy 19:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Template usage changed

The original author of this template has altered [3] the definition in Wikipedia:Template messages/Links of this Template:Main (links, talk) template's usage from "Articles top" to "Top of article sections". The description in this page has been altered to include both article top and section top usage. [4] (SEWilco 04:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

• The "Top of article section" usage is now the same as that for Template:seesubarticle (links, talk) and similar to Template:see details (links, talk). Template:subarticleof (links, talk) retains its "Articles top" usage.
• Which templates should now be used for which situations and what should their appearance be? (SEWilco 04:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

subarticle has been replaced by simply article in the subarticle templates. It was causing a lot of confusion. The new distinction is between details and background. I'm considering moving them to reflect this change. I would like that they be used exclusively for summary style relations, but the discussion I've tried to start hasn't really gotten off the ground. See Wikipedia_talk:Summary_style#templates_to_make_summary_style_explicit. --MarSch 08:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Reabsorption by Main

As the new summary of Main specifies sectional use, is it OK for the articles which formerly used Main to be changed back from Template:See details (links, talk) to Template:Main (links, talk)?

• Move: The usage is compatible with the new instructions. (SEWilco 02:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC))
• Move. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 02:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Move. —Lifeisunfair 03:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Move. Stbalbach 03:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Move. --Gpyoung ^talk 03:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

August 23 2005: Conversion done by User:SEWilcoBot. (SEWilco 00:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

Seemain conversion to Main

It has been discovered that use of {{seemain}} since it was redirected to {{main}} can apparently be identified. Although seemain was invoked in those articles, apparently use of main is acceptable. Should those articles which recently invoked seemain be converted to use main?

• Approve: The use of Main is apparently acceptable. (SEWilco 02:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC))
• Approve. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 02:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Approve. —Lifeisunfair 03:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Approve.Stbalbach 03:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

August 25 2005: Conversion done by SEWilcoBot. (SEWilco 18:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC))

Thank you. Stbalbach 20:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds and the minds of Wikipedia should not be, or appear to be, little. There are those of us who prefer See main article and consistency should not be imposed. Septentrionalis 17:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Use of templates is optional, there is no imposition, it is a short-hand to typing it out, no one is obligated to use a template if they dont like how it looks or is worded, each article is up to the editors. Templates do no confer authority. Stbalbach 21:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment in template

If you could demonstrate where/how the comment makes any difference in the rendering. I looked at a page both with and without the comment and it seemed to make no difference. Stbalbach 21:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Which comment? If you're referring to a comment which only has the name of the template in it, that is present to help an update bot find copies which have had subst: used on them. (SEWilco 17:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

Grievances

I hate this template. It blends with the rest of the article, it needs to stand out. It is also boring as hell. It needs to have bold added to it. This template is just incredably annoying.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 13:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think the indentation in this template is just about the ugliest thing in the entire Wikipedia. Anyway, how about a slight gray background? Fredrik | talk 12:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I bold the link portion of the template. Some boremonger will probably revert it and I'll have to change it again. I'm so tired of boremongers trying everything in their power to make Wikipedia like every other encyclopedia in the world: the most boring thing on Earth. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Instead of name-calling and proactively vowing to revert war, how about providing an explanation of why this change was logical? —Lifeisunfair 00:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Example section

Main article: Crushing by elephant

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

And would you also so dramatically change all the other articles that use pretty much the same style, like Template:otheruses? And fight to get the hundreds of thousands of articles that don't use this template but simply type out its text because it's a pretty brief template to follow the new style you're proposing? -Silence 12:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't personally do that. Sorry for having an idea. Fredrik | talk 12:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I never mentioned the idea, I mentioned the hypothetical implementation of it. Whether it's a good idea or not, how practical it is is a significant factor. -Silence 12:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The present template has been edited numerous times already, causing inconsistency with the thousands of articles that don't use it. This shouldn't be much worse. Fredrik | talk 12:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The present template is consistent since it was first created, or at least for the majority of its life. I'd suggest this template adds additional rendering complexity (CPU load), considering how many times per second the {main} template is being called, probably one of the most common across the entire project, it is a factor. With that said, main is optional, and you can use the above new style/look wherever you want instead of the main template. If other people start using it, and assuming it survives any TfD vote, it can start taking on a life of its own and who known maybe one day people will vote to make it default across the entire project. Thats the best way to approach it, by actual usage and consensus building over time. BTW I think it might look better if the blue bar extended only the length of the text and not across the entire page, just an idea. Stbalbach 17:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything to make this template stand out. I just can't stand the way it is now. I still think the link needs to be bolded. I just bolded after the above discussion sat idle for a month or so. I felt that gave everyone enough time to see and comment on my plans. The way it was (probably is whenever some jerk decides to revert my edit) was maddeningly boring. We keep talking about changing it but nothing ever happens. All the people who try and take action are reverted. That is tyranny! WE NEED ACTION! -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, I see the point. You have made the assumption that, since there was no reaction to your proposal, nobody objected to it - when it appears to be the case that in fact few people read it. Template talk pages are generally backwater areas and ignored by most users. I'd suggest that you create a short and tidy proposal (I've written a few lines below, feel free to edit) and then advertise it at WP:RFC, WP:VP and WP:TFD to inform interested parties. See what the response is. Oh, and don't call for a vote, call for discussion. Radiant_>|< 01:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Italian proposal

I propose this

Main article [[{{{1}}}]].

It's from Italian Wikipedia. I think it's nice. Let me know. Attilios

Too much server and bandwidth load overhead. Stbalbach 17:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense on stilts. Tha pages load just as fast and it looks much better than the other. Windows is what takes up all of your bandwidth. I've been using it all over the place.--Lacatosias 18:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Layout proposal

This template currently looks like this:

Main article: foo

However, this is too easily overlooked by users. Therefore, I propose to make it more obvious, either like this:

Main article: foo

or by adding color to it, like this:

Main article: foo

I'd like to hear what people think of this, and of course other proposals are welcome. If people agree, then this change would also apply to similar templates, such as (insert list here)

Actually, keep in mind that the template already has color in it—in the form of links. Also keep in mind that the template is just about always used right before a giant, bolded, extremely obvious and clear-to-see section header. What the template really currently looks like is:

Miscellaneous section

Main article: Article

Bit better, ne? I have to say, though, that the Christmas-themed template is enormously tempting. That's what Wikipedia needs more of: holiday cheer and festivity!!! -Silence 01:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oooh, can I add blink tags? Radiant_>|< 02:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Be bold and add bold to the template. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Is that a vote? If so, I vote to leave the template in its current state . . . as of 03:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC) —Lifeisunfair

Template Main vs. Subst:Main

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{main}} no longer contains meta-templates. Both the devs and the Netscape 2.1 folks should be happy with the current output. Do not subst this template, please. — Apr. 28, '06 [19:59] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

The following command:

{{subst:main|article}}

produces the same exact output as:

{{main|article}}

However the subst has two advantages:

1. It is not user-defineable, it is "hardcoded" and can't be changed, thus ensuring consistency.
2. It greatly reduces server load. See WP:AUM for details.

There are a dozen or more subst commands that are not widely known/used on Wikipedia and folks are using templates instead, which adversly affects server load and consistent appearance. I cant see why we should promote the use of the template versus the subst command since they both do the same thing, one better than the other. --Stbalbach 02:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistency problem: If the appearance of {{main}} is changed, future uses of main in an article will look different than any subst:main incantations. (SEWilco 16:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

This actually has been cited as an advantage (because it enables users to maintain the "stable appearance" that they prefer for the articles to which they contribute), but I agree with you. Whenever feasible, we should strive to create a consistent encyclopedia (not an assortment of pages containing various arbitrarily selected, trivially different styles). —Lifeisunfair 17:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, consistency between articles is also an advantage of the dynamic template. I was referring to consistency within the same article. A new editor adding the template to an article would add the current version, which may have a different appearance than frozen subst: versions in the same article. (SEWilco 03:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC))

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, that would be quite the problem. —Lifeisunfair 04:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

noinclude vs subst:main

The noinclude section of the template gets pulled into the page when you use subst:main, so the Wikilinks that were in that section (links that are only supposed to apply to the Template:Main page) get added to the "in other languages" of the page they're included on. I wonder how long that has been going on. I removed the noinclude section just now. — mjb 22:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

About a month or so. I had noticed the strange output too, but didnt put two and two together. Thanks. Ive added back the comment which didnt have problems before. Stbalbach 22:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess it's not so much the fact that there was a noinclude, but more just the fact that there were Wikilinks inside it. The comment can probably go in a noinclude. — mjb 22:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Whichever. The plain comment seemed to have no problems for a long time, the noinclude was a recent addition. Stbalbach 23:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

For the same reason as above (i.e., subst: pulls in noincludes), I've reverted the multi-article version of User:AzaToth. - SoM 19:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI, that bug has been fixed. With the multi-article version, substituting this template (which is contraindicated by our template substitution guideline) would add some unusual code to the article, but it would not affect its outward appearance. —Lifeisunfair 22:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Multi-article main

The template now supports multi-articles. Any problems/concerns please discuss. Note that the template substitution guideline is a new guidelines, as of November-- has there been discussion about why main should be exempt from substitution? --Stbalbach 23:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. What I do know is that I find it hard-coded more often than not, either by subst or by hand-coding - indeed, I first looked at this page after someone radically altered the look of the template and half a page had hard-coded Main articles and half had {{main|*}}s. And I really don't see how insisting on transcluding a template which doesn't involve a category contributes other than to server strain. - SoM 23:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It prevents the type of situation that you described (not that I advocate altering the template's appearance). Under the new setup, it also prevents the insertion of superfluous code. —Lifeisunfair 00:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

A small discussion is archived here. —Lifeisunfair 00:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Unification

see Template talk:See also, I think thise templates are so simlar that they should look the same. AzaToth ^talk 22:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

{{See also}} is supposed to refer readers to pages that relate peripherally. {{Main}} refers to articles that cover exactly the same topic in greater depth. —Lifeisunfair 23:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't ment that they should be the same, I was refering to using the same code base, because they look and function so simlar. AzaToth ^talk 23:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Made one for main also to give you and example of this template:

{{User:AzaToth/Main|1|2|3}} commented out until sub-template fixed —Phil | Talk 09:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

AzaToth ^talk 00:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I misunderstood. Yes, I agree that they should share the same code base. —Lifeisunfair 01:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Be very careful, you're straying into the realms of WP:AUM and you might have noticed that certain people tend to get excited in a not very happy way when that happens. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"See also" etc. etc.. in main template space

A user copied a lot of data from this discussion page into the main template article/space -- I have a couple questions/concerns. 1) Isnt this what talk pages are for? Turning the main template space into a free-form article seems like a risky venture. Cant we just tell people to read the talk page for usage information? Thats been done for years. 2) What assurances do we have this does not have a negative impact on server performance? This is one of the most commonly called templates on Wikipedia and its size recently has increased 10x --Stbalbach 03:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Main resources/number of variables

In the interest of finding a balance between utility and resource usage, Ive reduced the new multi-main down to 5 articles from the previous 20. While wikipedia does have seemingly endless disk and bandwidth, it is constrained by CPU and memory -- empty variables are still allocated memory and require some processing with each instance of the template. Since %99.99 of the time it will be either one or two articles, allocating memory (even a pointer) for 20 with each call is a rich use of resources, for this very popular template. As well, it's hard to imagine a need for more than 5 main articles in a section that isnt a bigger problem with the article design. For those special cases that may justify it, I would suggest they be hard-coded, in the interest of streamlining the template, or create a new special template "main-huge" or somthing. --Stbalbach 15:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Five articles is a reasonable quantity, given the fact that our earlier setup (which incorporated {{main}}, {{main2}}, {{main3}} and {{main4}}) accommodated between one and four (with usage of {{main3}} and {{main4}} being relatively uncommon). I would, however, like to hear from a MediaWiki expert regarding the extent to which superfluous coding depletes resources. If this is a major issue, it might be wise to restore the original {{main}} (restricting multi-article references to {{main2}}). We might even want to restore the original {{main2}}, and create a new {{mainx}} template (with redirects from {{main3}} and {{main4}}) for the relatively uncommon citations of three or more main articles. —Lifeisunfair 16:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Can agree with that. Also, I'm developing a new if that have no own calls, this will remove one level of meta-calls (It's the outer level, so it's a lot so say), you can change Template talk:If _→AzaToth 17:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• We have now enginered a new if, we have not yet replaced it, becaus we want to have consensus, also someone mediawiki technical should comment, if the new version is better than the old one.

See Template talk:If#New if, and pleas comment. Personally I think the new one is better for the server, because there is no meta calls from it as the current one have. _→AzaToth 22:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Expansion required

I'm going to expand it for Hindu Nationalism which requires 7. I'll expand to 10 to be on the safe side. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Make it 9 to keep it in single digits ;-) —Phil | Talk 16:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I object to that. Looking at the Hindu article the problem is someone using the {main} template in place of actually writing. Its a single sentence. Is there some reason those 7 links can't be turned into English prose? It would be rare to ever see more than 5 main articles. There needs to be a cap, both for resources and for encouraging good article design. Five seem more than enough, and if there is a rare case it can be justified, simply hand code it. --Stbalbach 16:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine, you go and rewrite that article. In the meantime I'm reinstating the higher limit so that the article in its current state is not broken. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, this was already discussed earlier and agreed on by a number of people that there is a balance between resource usage and article design and number of variables. I mean why not just make it 50..100? There will always be someone mis-using the template. That doesn't mean the rational for the limit is incorrect. --Stbalbach 17:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It was reduced from 20 down to 5 because the then-current version used a conditional method which was far less efficient and did indeed put a huge strain on resources even when the higher-numbered parameters were not being used. The current version uses a far more efficient system and can manage the higher number of parameters much better. In the meantime, my point is that a template shouldn't simply be changed in such a way that existing client articles are broken by it: the articles should be adjusted first. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Understood. Theres no way to know the scope of it for sure. So we'll add a warning message when the limit is exceeded so the problem will show up and can be corrected. If its a dozen or two, its better to correct the articles. If its 100s of 1000s then we should adjust upwards to grandfather those in. But this 5 limit has been in place a couple weeks now and this is the first anything has shown up. Its probably not a big issue. --Stbalbach 17:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

added a warning now, also all atricles that this warning is shown is added to Category:Usage of main with more than 5 parameters _→AzaToth 17:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That's brilliant. Thank you! --Stbalbach 18:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Template coding help

Hi-- I'm not a template coder, but we need some additional code for this template, when there are greater-than five variables it displays a message saying that the template only supports up to five variables, so that it doesnt "break" when someone exceeds the variable limit. --Stbalbach 17:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

&

Could we please get rid of the ampersand and restore the good ol' "and" which made us look like an encyclopedia rather than a magazine title? Or simply replace it with a tried-and-true comma? At the very least, I think "Main article: X & Y" should be changed to "Main article: X, Y", to be consistent with all the other templates—See2, Seealso2, etc. Come on, I can't be alone here. An isolated and unwelcome minority, sure, but not alone. -Silence 09:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

{{see also}} (talk) uses & (and now also {{see}} (talk)) _→AzaToth 10:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - we should use "and"; I would when writing it in prose. --SPUI (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

For example:

Main articles: Article, Article, Article , Article and Article

_→AzaToth 04:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit request

Could you add eo:Ŝablono:Ĉefa, fr:Modèle:Détails, pl:Szablon:Main? This should be added with noinclude tag: <noinclude>[[eo:Ŝablono:Ĉefa]] [[fr:Modèle:Détails]] [[pl:Szablon:Main]]</noinclude>. Thanks, Googlpl 20:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Done [5]. Dmcdevit·t 19:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There are now 2 "noinclude" sections in the template. To improve performance, can we condense the noinclude material into one section? I would do it myself, but the page is protected. --Stbalbach 19:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for help

Need help with editing the template, to move this section of the template:

noinclude
{esoteric}
/noinclude

..into this section:

noinclude
[eo:Ŝablono:Ĉefa]
[fr:Modèle:Détails]
[pl:Szablon:Main]
/noinclude

..so that it looks like:

noinclude
{esoteric}
[eo:Ŝablono:Ĉefa]
[fr:Modèle:Détails]
[pl:Szablon:Main]
/noinclude

There only needs to be a single "noinclude" section, not two. Thanks. --Stbalbach 05:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, check and make sure I did it right. Sorry for no seeing this comment earlier. Dmcdevit·t 21:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --Stbalbach 16:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to achieve the same functionality without meta-templates

Please see User talk:Freakofnurture/Main, where my proposed version is demonstrated. It would require no changes to the manner in which the template is called from the article, and it would also properly use serial commas and the word "and". As for the category presently invoked when the parameters exceed five, I've found no way to retain it with hiddenStructure code, however I find this to be a moot point, because:

1. There are no article pages currently passing 6+ parameters to the existing template.
2. If one section of an article links to more than five "main" articles, it would probably be best to divide it into smaller sections anyway.
3. If, for some reason, an article does need to reference 6+ related articles in the same line, the template could be without causing additional overhead per use.

If nobody objects to this replacement within a day or two I'm going to go ahead and change the code myself. I assure you, the majority of readers will not notice the difference. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 04:29, Jan. 8, 2006

I would only be supportive of new code if the appearance looks the same, and the functionality is the same. Once its in place (without Qif), if we want to have further discussions about appearance or functionality changes thats fine, but those are separate issues that need wider participation (see this page archives). The whole reason this Template was protected was to prevent people from changeing the appearance of the template without achieving consensus first which has been a long ongoing struggle, to say the least, to keep the template stable in appearance in functionality. --Stbalbach 06:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Template has changed, but only slightly

Well I went ahead and did it. Meta-templates are no longer an issue here, it's merely a high-use template (2,336). Due to technical limitations {{main}} longer conditionally references the Category:Usage of main with more than 5 parameters, which was empty at the time I made the change to the template (and should be sent to CFD). Also, the new version uses "and" instead of & and makes proper use of the serial comma ("A, B, and C" and not "A, B & C" as before). Other than that, the song remains the same. Have a nice day. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:01, Jan. 8, 2006

Very nice job, Freak! Everything looks perfect on my end. —David Levy 21:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

IBTD very strongly, "test the effect without CSS" is a basic step. It clobbers numerous pages for all old browsers and for anybody who decides or is forced to disable CSS for whatever reasons. That was no slight change, quite the contrary. Omniplex 08:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What happened?

Now there appears to be an extra white in all the articles that it's in, such as Madagascar. Any way to fix it? --Khoikhoi 20:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "extra white," and what browser are you using? —David Levy 21:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Firefox. I'm talking about an extra white space right below the template in the artices. See Madagascar. --Khoikhoi 22:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I just performed a direct comparison, and I see that the new version contains slightly more blank space above and below the notice. I actually think that it looks better this way. —David Levy 23:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the extra whitespace looks awful. There's too much. Can someone please put it back the way it was yesterday? ~MDD4696 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is the whitespace, above or below? Can you remove it by removing any blank lines in the article above or below the template? --Stbalbach 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the extra whitespace doesn't look good. It makes it harder to read since there is less content on the page. I would suggest using inline style parameters such as margin-top and margin-bottom to reduce the whitespace. -- Jeff3000 14:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Template indentation, new appearance

The template appearance, specifically the indentation, has changed slightly:

It also appears (per the above "What happened" thread) there is some extra white space inserted above (below?) the new template that was not there before. Not sure why that happened.

Relevant discussions why this is being done are User_talk:Freakofnurture#pet_peeve, User_talk:Netoholic#indenting and User_talk:Stbalbach#Re: Indentation.

--Stbalbach 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's seriously FUBAR resulting in output like...

Main articles: Nauru, and [[{{{2}}}]], and [[{{{3}}}]], and [[{{{4}}}]], and [[{{{5}}}]]

...on numerous pages, please revert it to the state 2005. Omniplex 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you please cite an example page? —David Levy 06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nauru was a real exampe, this page is another, you might not see it if your browser supports CSS. But maybe you can disable CSS for a "legacy browser" test, or try Lynx (?). Omniplex 06:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're using Lynx. This is a known problem. Many elements of Wikipedia display improperly for users of text-based browsers (a tiny percentage of readers), and I'm afraid that the situation is unlikely to improve in the near future. Sorry. —David Levy 07:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I use Lynx only if I want to check something. My regular Netscape 3.x also has no CSS, and users of Netscape 4.x hopefully all disable its broken CSS. The main CSS idea is AFAIK style / decoration, the actual content MUST also work without CSS. That's not the case for the broken main template. Omniplex 07:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, take a look at this list from 2004. As you can see, the vast majority of traffic is from CSS-capable browsers. —David Levy 07:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but is it some kind of official policy to annoy non-mainstream browser users on pages that used to work for them a week ago, probably including some authors? Omniplex 08:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, nor is it an official policy to provide 100% support to every browser ever programmed, even when this necessitates the use of resource-draining meta-templates or multiple template forks. —David Levy 09:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood your remark about text browsers. If backwards compatibility with non-CSS browsers is desirable the new template is a failure.

Maybe a bot could expand all uses of the old main template and insert an invisible comment how to switch to the new template if somebody wants this.

Or it could replace the typical case one main article by a simpler template, avoiding all of these problems. Details TBD of course.

Secondly, the content in question is accessible via non-CSS-capable browsers (albeit in a fairly ugly manner). —David Levy 07:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Putting it mildly, yes. If somebody intentional wants this effect it's no issue, a new template smart (Special Main Article Reference Template) could do this without affecting old pages. Omniplex 08:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Please elaborate. —David Levy 09:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Some folks like the author or you apparently like the new template, and should be free to use it. With a new name it can't hurt old pages built with the old template.

Especially pages needing only one link shouldn't be hurt by a new bug / feature only relevant for cases with two to five main articles.

Another strategy for authors would be to avoid dynamic templates, or to expand them as is, immune to future modifications. Not sure how that works, but I vaguely recall to have read something in this direction on the help pages. Omniplex 12:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why do you use Netscape 3.x? —David Levy 07:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Small (disk, RAM) and slow (PIII) and old (Warp 3) OS/2 box, it's ideal for that hardware, only 2MB binary. Omniplex 08:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please restore indentation

Please restore the ":" indentation. Main template has had an indentation from the day it was created, and thousands of Wikipedia editors have chosen to use this template based on that appearance. No one was consulted about an appearance change. In brief, this template has a long history of looking a certain way, and before it changes, consensus needs to be reached. No such consensus has been reached. --Stbalbach 22:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Full stop?

Shouldn't be a full stop at the end of sentence, like:

Main articles: Article.

Visor 20:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, there shouldn't be; it isn't a sentence. —David Levy 21:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have been reinserted when it was migrated to the new ParserFunctions syntax. I'd remove it but it's protected... Hairy Dude 23:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Modification request

As a non admin, I would like to request modification of the template as shown in this (diff). Intention: throw less {{{}}} stuff onto clients (look at the html source of Dune (computer game) for an example). --Adrian Buehlmann 10:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Done. howcheng {chat} 17:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Strange output

I'm getting strange output from the {{main}} template. For example, in the plot section of the article Les Misérables, the wikicode {{main|Plot of Les Misérables||||}} produces "Main articles: Plot of Les Misérables, and [[]], and [[]], and [[]], and [[]]".

I'm using jaws for windows 5.1 and Internet Explorer 6.0, with no control of CSS on the screen reader's end. What is going on, and how can it be fixed? Graham/pianoman87 talk 13:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Two separate templates

Yuck. How about breaking this template into 2, Template:Main article and Template:Main articles. You would call the singular version thus:

{{Main article|article}}

and the plural version thus:

{{Main articles|[[article 1]], [[article 2]], and [[article 3]]}}

One benefit is that you'd be able to use more than 5 main articles (a limitation of the current template). Also, the resulting two templates would display correctly in browsers that don't support CSS, such as lynx.

I think the case of multiple main articles is rare enough that it should have its own separate template. (Hopefully, if others support this idea, a bot could update the few pages that use the plural version.) dbenbenn | talk 22:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Multiple main articles is extremely common. Almost as many pages use the 2+ main articles as use as 1 main article. If anything, wouldn't it make sense to use your idea for a "Main articles" template for the articles with 6+? Then again, if we're at that level, why not just type the durn thing out manually? In situations as unusual as that, it seems merited to simply go to the trouble of typing out :''Main article: [[Article]]'' rather than spending hours trying to wrangle with code. Likewise, if there are any times when you think it's necessary to put a "main" in a page that will work for browsers that don't support CSS, why not just manually add the "Main:" code and save yourself the trouble of unnecessarily linking to a template? -Silence 22:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question: every page should work in all reasonable browsers. dbenbenn | talk 01:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The extra junk is being put into the page by a recent overhaul of many templates. There's discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#CSS hack reduces accessibility, and many other places. The issues are technical, but there are other solutions that work better. Please leave a comment at that discussion page, letting the developers know that this is affecting your use of Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 2006-01-22 21:59 Z

I've responded there. After some further testing, it seems to be a version issue, but I'm still not comfortable with causing grief to users of slightly older access technology. Graham/pianoman87 talk 05:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely how the template should have been changed to a long time ago. One parameter is all that we need. People can put any number of wikilinks into it, and they can specify alt wikitext for the displayed link. -- Netoholic @ 11:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't trying to justify the extra meaningless junk in the template's rendering, just explaining where it came from. Netoholic, it's easier for an editor to place it, once, but now the output is broken for readers, every time: little justification for such enthusiasm. —Michael Z. 2006-01-23 16:41 Z

Dude, I was replying to dbenbenn, not you. -- Netoholic @ 17:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I thought you were replying to Graham, and was following up to that. —Michael Z. 2006-01-23 18:43 Z

Something like 4500 pages use this template. Presumably a bot could be coded to change all instances of

{{main|article1|article2|...|articleN}}

to

{{main articles|[[article1]], [[article2]], ..., and [[articleN]]}}

User:Silence pointed out that "Multiple main articles is extremely common", but fortunately it doesn't really matter if you have a bot to do it. Once that's done, we can change Template:Main to only accept 1 parameter. (Note that I've made a similar proposal at Template:See also.) dbenbenn | talk 21:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to provide some status... I ran a bot through all the articles using "Main" and switched any that reference more than one article to Template:Main articles (plural). Dbenbenn then changed this template to accept only one parameter. I guess now the next step is how to resolve the distinction between Template:Main and Template:Main article (singular), which is very similar, but doesn't insert the [[]]'s (useful for section linking or changing how the text is displayed. Should we move all to Template:Main article, use Template:Main exclusively, or allow the choice. My preference is to move everything to Template:Main article, for simplicity and usability, since I don't think we need both. -- Netoholic @ 03:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed reversion

I'd like to propose reverting this article back to the version which utilized meta-templates (for discussion, see WP:AUM). The CSS hack used, while good intentioned, results in poor output over non-CSS aware browsers and accessibility issues for the disabled. (See also: Template talk:Taxobox). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought there was a larger discussion going on (somewhere) about this in general since it effects more than this single template. There seem to be good reasons for it, and good reasons against it. --Stbalbach 18:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You can see some of the discussion regarding accessibility at MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css. You can see a comment from Brion at WP:AUM (on the main page at the moment, and on the talk page) where he explains that meta-templates are not proven to be harmful. It is my belief that the accessibility issues trump any imagined server issues. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Avoid all of this, and just read the suggestion in the section immediately above (#Two separate templates). -- Netoholic @ 19:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the 'hiddenStructure' version of this template has been found to display incorrectly on non CSS browsers and cause problems for blind users (see #Strange output above) it should certainly be changed back to the format which works. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This request is no longer necessary, as the template now accepts only one parameter and contains no esoteric code at all. -- Netoholic @ 03:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Need to document change at top of page

If template is now changed from {{main|article}} to {{main|[[article]]}}. -- Paul foord 23:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You still use {{main|article}}. I just changed the template so that it only accepts one parameter. Netoholic tells me he replaced all plural uses of this template with Template:Main articles; an impressive feat. dbenbenn | talk 06:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Topic Bold

Would propose to put the topic in bold letters (no italics) - much better visibility. e.g. >>> Main article: Bla bla bla <<< Try it out! :) --Neoneo13 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It already stands out because of its margins, indentation, and italic font-style, as well as by its usual position below a main subheading. More emphasis would definitely be overkill.

Come to think of it, removing the indentation would probably improve the link's appearance, by not causing a jarring visual gap right at the top of a section. —Michael Z. 2006-02-03 20:37 Z

Bold gives it too much emphasis. Bold is reserved for special things that you want to stand out, like the title of the article. It's better indented so it is an obvious notational item and not part of the main text. --Stbalbach 20:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link to vi:

Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

[[vi:Tiêu bản:Chính]]

Thanks.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Indention difference

As I commented on Template talk:Main articles, there is a difference in indention between {{main}} and {{main articles}}, causing an inconsistent look in articles that use both. Bloodshedder 05:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The difference is in how they are coded. Why are they coded in different ways, do they need to be? I know the current {main} code is for some good reasons. -- Stbalbach 05:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Confused

I am confused by the description given under Comparison with related templates. Suppose we have an article Mona Lisa with a brief section Mona Lisa#Her smile, and a long and detailed article The mystery of Mona Lisa's smile. If I take the given description literally, we should

1. put "{{main|The mystery of Mona Lisa's smile}}" at the top of section Her Smile, or
2. put "{{main|Mona Lisa}}" at the top of the article The mystery of Mona Lisa's smile.

Questions

• So am I correct in thinking that this template has two uses that are precisely each others' dual?
• Does the italic or here mean exclusive or, OR can we have links in both directions simultaneously?

The first use looks identical to the use of Template:Details as described in the documentation of its talk page, which is different from the use described here under Comparison with related templates.

• Which is the correct use?

Lambiam^Talk 00:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

See deprecated

Does an administrator want to replace

• {{See}}

with

• {{See}} deprecated — use Template:Further

Usgnus 23:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Too many parameters

I attempted to use {{subst:main|RollerGames}} today in the roller derby article, and the resulting substitution was this mess:

:''Main article{{#if:{{{2|}}}|s}}&#58; [[RollerGames]]{{#if:{{{2| }}}

|{{#if:{{{3|}}}|,&#32;|&#32;and&#32;}}[[{{{2}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}

|{{#if:{{{4|}}}|,&#32;|,&#32;and&#32;}}[[{{{3}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{4|}}}

|{{#if:{{{5|}}}|,&#32;|,&#32;and&#32;}}[[{{{4}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{5|}}}

|, and [[{{{5}}}]]}}''{{#if:{{{6| }}}|&#32; (too many parameters in

&#123;&#123;[[Template:main|main]]&#125;&#125;)}}

Somehow, it renders OK, but something is obviously wrong. What's going on?—mjb 19:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Those are conditional parameters (applicable only when multiple articles are linked). The solution is to avoid substituting this template, as advised here. In fact, most article space templates probably shouldn't be substituted. —David Levy 19:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No shit... why did you subst it? — Apr. 28, '06 [19:22] <freakofnur_xture|talk>