Template talk:Transclude

??

A template with 3 million transclusions? Is it really needed? Rich Farmbrough, 15:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC).

I'm wondering this too. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:PERF, although of course you already knew that. Why should the number of transclusions have any effect on the perceived utility of the template? If anything, its wide use should be supportive of its usefulness. Happy‑melon 11:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is the full utility of this template expressed in the real world? I tend to agree with the others that there is not much genuine utility for this template. It's functionality (if genuinely needed) should just be worked into the template it's piggybacking on, namely: Template:Navbar. (→Netscott) 06:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's now used in {{usbk}} as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Transwiki problems

Good day all, I am transwiki-ing this template, and I am encountering problems. I have set up a TempNavBox template to try and bugfix and I have come up with the following:

• The Navbox renders fine.
• The Navbar however returns the text below:

[[Template:FULLPAGENAME: TempNavBox|v]] • [[{{TALKPAGENAME:Template:FULLPAGENAME: TempNavBox}}|d]] • [{{fullurl:Template:FULLPAGENAME: TempNavBox|action=edit}}e]

Any thoughts? Tigey (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And the pointless template of the year award goes to...

Seriously, what is the point of this template, it seems like you're typing {{Transclude|Template:!}} just to type Template:!. How counter-productive. What is the point of this template? Especially since it is the number one most used template in the world. -B1KWikis (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If that is the only point of the template, then I assume the content is: '''{{{1|}}}'''. -B1KWikis (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What can i do with this template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.158.215.220 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

description is convoluted

For a template that is so widely used, the template description is hard for a non-computer person to understand. Igottheconch (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the point is that it's a meta-template; average Wikipedia users won't need to use it in specific pages. It's seemingly a way of getting around illogical software behavior. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - 22 October 2013

This template has a lot of unnecessary spacings... I removed a bunch of them here. Could this be implemented in the actual template? -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 06:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I don't think it is worth overloading the job queue for such a trivial change, and I can't even see the benefit in making the change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Translation

I’m requesting help deciphering the text added in the most recent change.^[1] I’m trying to translate the comments in this file for usage on the Haitian Creole Wikipedia, but don’t understand what that text means, even in English. Thank you. —LLarson (said & done) 16:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: You might be able to help me understand this? Thank you. —LLarson (said & done) 20:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I added this comment because the code appears to be backwards, in a certain sense.

What it does is looks at pagenames which appear to be mainspace: these come in two forms, to use a real example (instead of foo)

1. :Physics
2. Physics

These both link to the article on physics if you use them in square brackets - Physics, Physics.

But in curly brackets {{Physics}} is a template, while {{:Physics}} is the article.

So the code compares the namespace of "Physics" with "TemplatePhysics" (no colon) and gets a match- that means it's a template.

Conversely comparing the namespace of ":Physics" with "Template:Physics" (colon) and gets no match- that means it's an article.

It is very backwards but it works - and would if the bolded text were any legitimate namespace.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: Thank you! I think I understand. Does this mean it’d make more sense to have the first of the template’s three comments be
<!-- eg "Template:Foo" --> instead, so that it matched the Template mention on line 5 in order to—if I understand—compare apples to apples? —LLarson (said & done) 19:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure really. It might be better to say "Explicit namespace, such as User:Foo, Template:Foo, Category:Foo."

Because if the namespace is specified then the code can deal with it easily, in the #default line.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC).

Possibly we should just test for a leading ":". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC).

Changed thusly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC).