Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metalworking/Template list/archive

Navigation boxes

Ok, so I spent a few minutes playing with (aka fucking up :) the drilling and threading articles... they're now part of Category:Drilling and threading and include template Template:Metalworking - Drilling and threading, giving them a navigation box at the bottom that looks like:

{{Metalworking - Drilling and threading}}

Shiny!  :)

The bottom list of links needs lots of work, but I can't complete it until actually making the articles/categories they're supposed to link to.

When we're pretty sure the categorization of articles isn't going to change too much, and we've made little introduction pages and/or categories for everything the bottom row should link to, I'll make a bunch of them up for every category... until then, enjoy Drilling and threading! Bushytails 20:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Shiny indeed, it's looking good. I've done some tweaking, the edit history will show them comments at the articles talk Graibeard 22:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Nav box - Metalworking hand tools

Category:Metalworking hand tools {{Metalworking - Metalworking hand tools}}

I'll add the template later (in truth I forgot it on the Category: run!). Anyway, stopping now. Graibeard 17:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Mini navs, generic style

I added another template, Template:Metalworking - Metalworking hand tools - Mini, for the articles that metalworking is only a small part of, and the big template would be annoying (especially if it has one for metalworking, one for woodworking, etc, etc).

{{Metalworking - Metalworking hand tools - Mini}}

That's a tidy solution, I had concerns about the potential problem too. — Graibeard 02:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I had a play with the mini template and have turned it into a generic style. It's located at Template:Metalworking - Mini and it takes one parameter, the category name you want it to direct to eg: for Metalworking hand tools then {{Metalworking - Mini|Metalworking hand tools}} will give

{{Metalworking - Mini}}

— Graibeard 12:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Nav box sub lists

I also made the templates include a separate template for the list of main topics, so only one page needs to be editted to update all of them.

I've taken that one step further and done the same thing for the template articles, this allows them to be dual purpose and used for the article headings at metalworking, without cluttering the page. — Graibeard 02:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll work more on templates, categories, etc tonight... have to go spend the rest of the day stripping paint. blah! Bushytails 21:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, hold the nav boxes

Article series boxes (or navigational templates) are boxes with links to other related articles. This page suggests that they are a no-no in our case, in fact we fail the no test. Instead, Categories and lists rule. — Graibeard 10:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a proposed policy that isn't anything close to being in force. See Christianity, for example. Also take a look at some of the community response. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I think our use is a good one, and certainly follows how they're often used on wikipedia (such as Template:ArtificialLightSources, Template:threeagesystem, hell even Template:Technology, which when done we should add ourselves to), and meets all the items on the "advantages" list. Bushytails 01:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to have some free time tonight... Unless there's still concern over the nav boxes, I'll probably work on re-categorizing and adding templates to the articles. Bushytails 18:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Your timing is excellent as I'll be lying low for a few days. My concerns regarding the templates are gone so, time permitting, it's full speed ahead again. Graibeard 21:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Welding nav box proposal

I'd like to propose that the following box be placed on all welding pages. Comments? --Spangineer (háblame) 03:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Good to have you onboard Spangineer,

• I'd suggest including (MIG) and (TIG) in the respective link descriptions, for the layman to relate to.
• I notice that you don't try and list all the related links (which is probably a good thing, otherwise the box size risks increasing too much). Are you going to have an introduction page that will list them all, such as by creating new indexes/portals along the lines of Welding Equipment (Equipment), Welding Terminology (Related), Welding processes (other processes)? We're planning on following this approach with the yet unfinished pages listed on {{Metalworking - Main links}}).
• The see also section, if you included brazing and soldering back under other processes (or related) we could squeeze a few more links from {{Metalworking - Main links}}) into it , Metallurgy, Fabrication, and Jewelry would top my choice list. I'd actually prefer them all to go under see also :) and although they would make it considerably larger, there is still width available and it would complete the category listings. — Graibeard 06:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought a picture would be worth the thousand wards so I've done the deed, the first box is the first mentioned option. It follows your style fairly closely with minimal width and also reduced content, it keeps welding as a seperate, defined area . It would of course need three new pages as intros to the particular areas, also individual templates per area...

and this one has the lot, it's more in the format of the other metalworking pages. It lists all the categories so there are no hidden pages, everything can be found (eventually) by just following the nav boxes -- Arc welding:, Welding equipment, Welding terminology, Welding processes, Arc welding and Metalworking topics: listings.

Food for thought? Hopefully good food :) — Graibeard 10:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Good ideas. I'm not sure I like including every metalworking category on this template, since it's going to go on welding pages. Having links available to pages like heat-affected zone and electron beam welding I think would be more useful than links to cutting tools and CNC. Part of the reason people are arguing about whether or not to allow nav boxes like this one (on WP:CSL, for example) is that there are too many unrelated links on them. As for creating portal type pages (Welding equipment, etc.), that's a good idea that I haven't gotten around to implementing yet. I've already created List of welding processes, though it needs some work. I've linked to that page under "Other processes". I've also added the two acronyms you suggest, plus one that's apparently fairly common in the UK. I removed drilling and milling from the see also section, since they are (at least to my knowledge) subsets of machining. I'd prefer to leave brazing and soldering in the see also section, since I'm not sure that they can be considered true welding processes. What do you think of the following:

Yep, that looks fine by me - run with it, although...

I think brazing and soldering are technically welding - (dictionary.com is probably a fuller definition), what they (brazing/soldering) are not, and what the others are (arc welding) is fusing. My understanding is that with arc both pieces melt then fuse together, whereas with brazing/soldering only one actually melts. I agree though that soldering may not be thought of as such, just tell an electronic repairman that he's welding the components to the board! However (as none of this is meant to get pedantic, but you did get me thinking about it :), like I said above - it's fine as is.

I can appreciate wanting to keep it fairly tight. We may well follow suit with ours (reducing the number of links) but until the portal pages are scoped out we're relying on these nav boxes to give some continuity to the pages. The category alternative is fine for its auto indexing capabilities but the link placement (bottom of page) and terminology doesn't exactly shout The index is here — Graibeard 13:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It's rather ambiguous. I wrote the welding article with a tighter focus (excluding soldering and brazing) partly because it seemed to reflect common usage in the textbooks I read and from what I heard from my professors. Brazing and soldering involve introducing a third material that melts between the two pieces being joined (neither of which melt), which creates the bond. I guess it's sort of like using a low-melting temperature metal as a glue between the two pieces. --Spangineer (háblame) 14:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Metalworking - Mini

Template:Metalworking - Mini was nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was delete. The debate has been archived here. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed New Casting Template

I have been working on the casting section recently and found that the interlinks were disorganised, for anyone needing information about casting and the technologies involved in casting I believe the proposed template layout as below would make more sense, as you will see there is some information still to be included however this would prompt other contributors to start the pages, I will be posting the required pages on the main project page as well.

Any comments or objections to altering the main template please let me know
MarkBolton 14:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Project Template Reorganization

I would like to propose that this project's templates be reorganized to include the following:

• Template:Metalworking be renamed {{MetalworkingWP}} This is a more accurate name for the template

• A new master navigational template to replace the eighteen current templates. This template will be named {{Metalworking}}. I have already created this template which includes all of the current links plus a few more. It uses additional commands to uncollapse relevant sections.

Advantages

• vastly simplifies process of tagging related pages, and makes project template page easier to understand
• cohesive information on all project pages
• all links available from all project pages rather than arbitrary groupings as currently
• relevant sections can still be emphasized by uncollapsing using the template parser
• no stacked templates, which must be processed twice during page load and complicate template editing
• many old templates can be deleted

Disadvantages

• requires re-tagging many pages (~500 talk pages first to clear up name for new template, then all project pages with links to old templates)

I have already created the new main template, and will be happy to do a lot of the work to help with documentation and re-tagging. I think that this will be a boon for this project, and welcome feedback to this idea.Bryancpark (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

For the most part I really like the ideas posted above. A couple of small points:

• To conform with most other Wikiprojects the {{Metalworking}} template should be renamed to {{Wikiproject metalworking}}. If we do decide to do this, AWB or a bot can be setup to change all of the talk page templates, therefore eliminating the grunt work.
  • Sounds good, I like the bot doing the work. Can we go ahead and get started on this part? Bryancpark (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, there's nothing really stopping us, but since we are talking about moving the template, we really ought to update it so that it functions like everyone elses, in that we can apply a class and priority. I looked into it once and it didn't look too difficult, so I'll see what I can throw together tomorrow. Wizard191 (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I've setup up a new talk page template here: {{WikiProject Metalworking}}. I need to setup all of the categories first before we can start changing over to it. I'm waiting for my AWB status to do that and then I'll try and start converting the templates. Wizard191 (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks for all your work on this. Bryancpark (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• The new template should not be named {{Metalworking}} just because its confusing since that was used for the talk page template. I propose {{Metalworking footer}} or {{Metalworking2}}.
  • If we wait until the bot is done replacing all the old ones, do you still think it would be a problem? What about {{MetalNav}} for a new name? Bryancpark (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • We can attempt to delete the template per Wikipedia:Deprecated and orphaned templates. However, that's at least a 2 week process once begun. Wizard191 (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I was thinking that once all of the talk pages have been updated to the new {{WikiProject Metalworking}}, that {{Metalworking}} could be repurposed for the new Navbox. I would be happy to notify everyone whose User pages link to {{Metalworking}} and let them know of the changes. If you still think that would be too confusing, what about {{Metalworking Navbox}} for the new name? Bryancpark (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a way to make this new template completely all of the section except for the ones that we tell it to? Right now it is just really bulky even when just the section titles are showing. I don't really think we need to show all of the sections for all instances of the template. Otherwise it looks really good. Wizard191 (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I will see about that, I think it may be possible. I am still learning the proper way to set up the parser stuff. Right now, the template defaults to a closed variety, when the "show" link is clicked the nine main topics drop down and if one has been selected, it will be the only one open. I have implemented this on my user page. Another way to reduce the bulkiness of the current look would be to combine or remove a few categories. I have removed the "Terminology" section as there is a link to the Metalworking terminology article in the top list moved the links to appropriate sections (there were only two). I combined "Finishing" with "Forming and Fabricating". "Occupations" could be a link in the top list to an updated article. Bryancpark (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have created two possible templates to be the new main template. The first includes five topical areas in collapsible boxes; one area may be expanded by using parameters. The second only displays one of the five topical areas depending on the parameter used.

In both cases I have removed the "Jewellery" section, as I think that should get its own Navbox. What do you think? I am torn between them because I think that it is helpful to have all the related topics together, but I also appreciate the simplicity of the second format. Bryancpark (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is there anyway you can activate more than one "section" in your second example using expressions? If so, I think that would be perfect, IMO. The other one is better now that there are less sections, but still seems bulky to me, although I could be swayed... Wizard191 (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The template is now very flexible. It can now show any number of sections, open or closed, in any order. Bryancpark (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • SWEET! The second one looks awesome. If we can just put together some simple documentation to show how to pass the arguments I think that would give it the green light. As for the name (sorry, I'm sort of moving the convo down here now) I think, just to play it safe, we ought to name it {{Metalworking navbox}} (note the lower case "n" per WP:MOS). Thanks you for your hard work. Wizard191 (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I will write the documentation page when I create the template (I agree about name). I think I will also archive the current Template list so that we can show only the active templates and start replacing the others. I will look at AWB to see what I need to do to help with that. Bryancpark (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)