Jump to content

Category talk:Wikipedia templates

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed rearrange

[edit]

Untitled

[edit]
Also see User:David Kernow/Sandbox.
{{template category
|description = 
|help        = 
}}

This is a proposed rearrange of Category:Wikipedia templates.

Category:Wikipedia templates

[edit]

Potential CfDs

Category:Wikipedia metatemplates

[edit]

"Metatemplates: templates used with or within other templates."

Category:Wikipedia templates by subject area

[edit]


Category:Wikipedia templates by namespace

[edit]

(All namespaces bar the default Article namespace)


Category:Templates for deletion


Category:Uncategorized templates

(with Category:Miscellaneous templates merged in) (DK: Category:Miscellaneous templates to be rendered obselete.)

Category:Wikipedia utility templates

[edit]

Templates that assist in adding to or formatting pages' content...

Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates

[edit]
DK: ...with something like "Templates that make announcements, e.g. ..." on the category page.
DK: "Maintenance"... Is there a viable distinction between "maintenance" and "information" ('making announcements') templates...?
MP: I don't think there really is. I can't recall ever seeing an information template that wasn't used for maintenance here.
DK: Okay. Something was bugging me about this section, but if it has any substance it should surface later.
DK: ...On second thoughts, I think there may need to be some kind of distinction, otherwise all these templates arguably utility templates...?  Perhaps distingiush between those templates used to add to the article text itself ("utility", U below) and those adding notifications or the like (N below)...
MP: Having thought about it some more, I agree that "maintenance" isn't the best way to go, although I think something along those lines is needed. Suggest Category:Wikipedia collaboration templates, Category:Wikipedia rating templates and Category:Wikipedia notification templates, with Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates generally merged into the first of these. Mike Peel 20:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK: Not sure how Category:Wikipedia collaboration templates would work here; to me, it suggests association with e.g. WikiProjects...?
MP: That's true. I was getting the "collaboration" idea from Wikipedia:Community Portal, which has a section dedicated to collaboration, but methinks Maintenance is fine. Mike Peel 17:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia notification templates

[edit]

"Templates that display a standardized message."



To put somewhere

[edit]

To be deleted

[edit]

Discussions

[edit]

(Categorize by type? (Infobox templates, Navigation(al) templates, ...))

[edit]
Transferred from User talk:David Kernow#Category:Infobox templates and Category:Navigational templates:

I'm very tempted to put Category:Infobox templates and Category:Navigational templates up on CfD, as I think that they a) are unnecessary - who needs to browse a category of random infoboxes? b) are likely to be the sole host of templates that would otherwise be filed under the appropriate subcategory of Category:Wikipedia templates by namespace, and hence found more easily by wikipedians looking for them. Note that I think that categories holding similar-themed templates of a specific type (e.g. Category:Astronomical infobox templates) are a good idea. Can I ask for your thoughts on this before putting it to the community at large? Mike Peel 20:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree; for the reasons you give, no compelling reason jumps to mind, but I know I haven't yet given it more than a first thought. (I was reminded earlier today of another category that probably fits the rationale, i.e. a collection of otherwise unrelated templates: Category:Templates using ParserFunctions. If ParserFunctions are here to stay, then I wonder what significant use of that category I may be overlooking...)
Beyond the above,
  1. I offer to instigate etc any CfDs we reckon are worthwhile, as I'm not researching a PhD;
  2. There are other possible CfDs knocking around, so any thoughts as to whether to unleash all on one day or add them as they arise...?
  3. (For any first thoughts that come to mind:) For example, one mass nomination I have in mind is to propose replacing all instances of "...boxes" (e.g. "Category:Turkish navigational boxes") with "..templates", as:
    1. Not all so-called "boxes" are necessarily box-like;
    2. Consistency and simplicity: to use a single, generic and more fundamental term ("templates") rather than a mixture of "...templates" and "...boxes".
  4. Similarly, perhaps all "...infoboxes" to become (the admittedly longer) "...infobox templates"...?
Omit responses to any of the above in lieu of first thoughts – PhD first!
(Help; am I turning into your mother/grandmother/nanny/other stereotyped character [delete as applicable]...?!)
Chuckle, David (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in two minds with the parserfunctions category. As it stands now, I agree that it isn't much use. However, it might be an idea to have a template that says "this template uses parser functions", along with a link to m:ParserFunctions, in a similar style to {{esoteric}} (or they could in fact be one and the same; it would be interesting to see how much {{esoteric}} is used if you take out all of the parserfunction templates using it). This template could then be used to populate Category:Templates using ParserFunctions, such that it becomes a template tracking category. On the other hand, in line with what I said in brackets, Template:Esotoric templates does a better job at collecting the complicated templates together.
Replies to your numbered statements:
  1. Thanks; that's much appreciated.
  2. I can see the reason for doing it all at once, however I'm wary of overwhelming CfD, especially if/when the categories get deleted and the category links need removing/repointing. I would say that categories should be put up on CfD as soon as we know that they're definitely not necessary (both now and after future modifications), as long as we believe that it will also be clear to the people at CfD (we want them to agree that they're clearly not needed).
  3. I agree with you here.
  4. Also here. The problem is finding them all, and also making sure that new ones conform.
Mike Peel 19:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started this last night and faded... just now found it the second time today.
So this ignores David's comments since I backed out of the section edit to land it, and he seems to have left for the day. I'll answer anything on those below. // FrankB 04:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
?Someone trying to figure out good features for the one they are trying to do? Someone looking for a name they can't quite remember exactly--I use cats for THAT all the f***king time! (Good advice -- don't age! <g>)
  No reason to not keep a separate category scheme, and every reason to do so -- Not everyone thinks alike, and people are pretty used to these names. Also, see what we're up to in commons:Category talk:Maps. (You, me and David are all working together in parallel, though you may not know it!) You're both doing most of the re-catting here, and I interwiki and much to much usage fixing and massaging conversions. Hell join me in that, that'll slow you both down! Can't use AWB either, too many decisions and needs too much well thought out prose to be easy to translate into other languages. On top of that, have to convert so usage finds the see also's, even when only that doc page and it's parent have been ported, so not hard, but useful.
  The Navigation category in particular should stay unmolested as you'd both be de-linking a good main article, and disconnecting from the structure I've been exporting to the other sisters! Anything prefixed with 'Wikipedia' is bad news for my needs and WP:TSP. I at the least have to convert parent cat declarations to {{SITENAME}} forms, and the category survey I did some months back on the other sister's is holding up in practice. By that I mean the list of cats on {{interwikitmp-grp/doc}} and the other usage page which tags along when viewed. As of the survey I made a few moments ago, using {{interwikicat-grp}} (which is alas, not ready yet--it's what brought me here-- see the note in here), about half the sisters have the same category (A good thing). Three probably have no need, and the jury is still out for Meta's needs, but I expect Wikispecies and Wikversity to join that club.
  While the Nav group is deliberately not (yet) linked in those, you'll be relationally orphaning a number of equivalent templates which are in use on the commons and here. Some of those I ported and converted, some others have done so, with other templates. Also, not all navigation templates are used on article talk. There are a few which are used on categories, and more that are used on images. Consider one to link covers in a popular book series... by Fair Use exclusions, they cannot be used directly in a main article covering the whole series -- say Honorverse, but such an article might link to all the covers. ({{1632 covers}}). Then there's the prime example in that dynamic maps template in Wikipedia:Navigational templates. (... which seems much shorter than I recollect it... now cites two sub-articles!)
Also for example see: 17th century which I went off and started by circuitous routes via the commons side, when this server wouldn't respond to a preview on the above paragraphs. All those templates are shared by both sisters, albeit with some modifications at times on the commons. At least I can close this note now! Cheers! // FrankB 04:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see a whole lot more to add to David's comments save two things.
  1. There is value in legacy names, I made that point above. Asking people to relearn things is an irritant, and I'd avoid that as a courtesy and stifle any inherent outrage I felt at inconsistencies in naming. It's not a perfect world, and never will be, so why make work for little gain, and a real possibility of costing someone time?
  2. I'd asked CBD about the parserfunctions cat not to long back, I'll park the lengthy exchange here, but the short answer is they can probably be done away with, and apparently so can Esoteric templates.
David, I left another note on the commons Maps talk... did you put that on the village pump? I'm amazed it's not drawing any commentary. Ditto this reorganization you two are doing... suspect some of this should have been discussed in advance.
  For some good news, however, see the developments at
Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Propose_tagging_with_both_and_expanding_use_of_Cat_redirects_overall
that sub-section and the discussion leading into it. CFD loading may not be an issue whatever -- In sum we may be soon tagging with both hard and category redirects vice deleting any obsolescent names, so CFD loading may not be much of an issue. Cheers! (And happy Sunday--Good luck with the doctoral work Mike!) // FrankB 05:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I'm a follower of the KISS principle, and I also dislike bureaucracy. More specific to wikipedia, I hold that if a category doesn't have any use, then it shouldn't exist, even for historical reasons. I can't see any value to legacy names; they just add additional bureaucracy. Replacing them with a redirect is far better (case in point: Category:Templates and Category:Wikipedia templates)

In the case of Category:Navigational templates (and also Category:Infobox templates), not only do I think that it doesn't have much use, I think it is actually decremental. If we have two groups of people doing two different things - one filing templates in this category, the other using Category:Wikipedia templates by subject area - someone in one group just won't know that templates created by the other group even exist, and hence are more likely to start creating duplicate categories. Even if they do know that the other set of templates exist, it's more time-consuming to check in two places than one, especially if the other place is as disorganized as Category:Navigational templates.

When you talk about costing people time, bear in mind that there's two distinct groups of people: one lot who are familiar with the current system, and another that aren't. While I appreciate your reasoning behind minimizing the amount of the first group's time that we take up, and will do my best to do so, the second group should also be kept in mind.

The category structure I'm trying to see set in place would effectively do the same job as the "Footers" section on Wikipedia:Navigational templates and similar lists on other pages, except on a much larger scale (including every applicable template on Wikipedia), and in a much more flexible manner (no editing pages external to the template, which are likely to not be known about; just a category link on the template page itself). The current page has a tendency to get very out of date and is also incomplete.

Please note that I'm _not_ advocating the deletion of every single *** navigational templates on wikipedia. I have no issue whatsoever with Category:Author navigational boxes at present, so Template:1632 covers would not be affected by this change. That category fits well into Category:Wikipedia templates by subject area. It is _only_ the top-level category, Category:Navigational templates, that I want to see gone. Mike Peel 12:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I will give you a first-hand reason as to why those categories are very useful (and I know, because one month ago, I used them!). When I was setting out to create an infobox for the Mixed Drinks WikiProject, I needed to look at a lot of examples to find ones that did what I needed (see {{WPMIXInfobox}} for the results). The same thing was true when a couple of weeks ago I started working on the {{Alcoholic beverages}} navigation box. These categories actually, for me at least, are more useful than the documentation. Seeing similar templates grouped together like that is very, very helpful from a developer's standpoint. Sure, the likelihood of any non-developer getting much use out of the categories is low, but when you need to find examples to steal from, it's a great resource. A name change would be fine (though I'm not sure how that would help), but don't merge the templates into some other broader category. That would be a major step backwards in helpfulness for template designers, and that's already a steep enough learning curve to work through. --Willscrlt (Talk) 06:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(David: I'm cc-ing you in on my reply to this as I'd appreciate your thoughts on my suggestion below, as well as to keep all of this conversation in one place.)
I've been thinking this through further, and I'm still leaning towards trying to get the categories deleted. I understand where you're coming from here - I've been in the same position several times in the past - but I think having categories with the aim of them holding every single template of that type is OTT. How would you feel about an "Introduction to creating navigation boxes" page (and the same for infoboxes)? These would describe the various features that the type of template could have, along with many links to existing templates that use these features. Hopefully, this would accomplish two goals - making the templates easier to understand and develop by those that aren't doing so already, and providing targeted links to templates that do specific functions, so that you don't have to visit lots of templates looking for a specific feature / idea. Mike Peel 23:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates seem to be created/recategorized more often than categories, so, having read the above again, I wonder if it'd be feasible to create a category system where each template is a member of only one category, but that category is a subcategory of one or more categories (that are subcategories of one or more categories, that are...). Offering more than route to a template (i.e. via subject area, or via namespace, or via format, or...) would then rest entirely on the category system, rather than on each template belonging to more than one category (thereby prone to omissions).

If (1) there's some sense in the above, but (2) it's just a distillation of the discussion thus far, I'm glad I'm thinking along the right kind of lines!  David (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you meaning something like this:
while also saying that no templates should be placed into the Wikipedia* and *-related * templates categories (i.e. all but the actual subject area categories)? If so, then this should be possible, but will need a fair amount of new categories making, and recatting templates into them (but then, the former will be needed anyway over time). Mike Peel 19:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, something like that. I realize it'd need work, but if it's viable and a means to accommodate different routes to the same template without loading the template with categories...  David (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that that is probably the best way of arranging things. Trying to get Category:Navigational templates and the infobox one through a CfD would probably be pointless; some people seem to be attached to them. If it becomes just an alternative entrance way, then I can't see an issue with it. The only problem is the large number of new categories that would be needed, as well as making sure that all templates are in the appropriate category (either navigation or infobox, or the main category for a subject, as dictated by the type of category).
I haven't got the time and energy to start implementing this this evening, and I probably won't have time to do a long editing session on wikipedia until the weekend, or possibly even next Tuesday, so I'll mull it over for a bit and see if I can think of alternatives. If you want to make a start on it, then feel free. Mike Peel 21:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now started doing this, although I think it will be a running process for quite some time. The new categories have been created in Category:Navigational templates; I'm now recatting individual templates into the appropriate places. Mike Peel 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just stopped by, by chance a few minutes later. I was meaning to see if Frank (or anyone else passing by) might confirm, advise or demur re the above, but I know he's a busy man. I'll take a look at Navigational templates sometime tomorrow to see where I might assist or open a second front – if anything specific comes to mind, by all means leave a pointer. Yours, David (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, just caught up with the zig to here... I likee the new sub-categories in navigation templates. David may not recall but there was a definite tendency in Cfd last Spring to go for the shortest and (usually) least clear category name... I got up on me soap box and in a couple of weeks, that seemed to turn around. Now you've missed some slam-dunk easy to classify templates Mike! Arts and culture-related navigation templates is the natural home for all those Playboy Bunnies and Penthouse Pets--just ask any affectionatto of strip clubs! (Well, at least my best man. He used to call neked women God's artworks on Earth. <g>)
      I do have some misgivings about over stringently categorizing things linearly, there is a lot to be said for having the occasional junk drawer here and there, collecting things. But you two certainly relate the same way with one another... kind of like all the people of one political persuasion hanging out with people of like minds--then come election day they're astonished they lost the election cause they thought pretty much everyone that mattered thought and felt the same way. Sigh! Think the trouble there is what makes sense to one who knows the inner workings doesn't always make sense to another. For example, I'd be astonished if I trained in the sciences, math, and engineering every think alike with someone who followed a more typical liberal arts track in school. In any event, you're doing a good job tidying-up so go forth and scratch the itch. If you see any templates that might be of general purpose use and interest drop a note on WT:TSP if you would. For example bar graphs, {{equation}} and like tools can be used just as readily on wikibooks, wikiversity, and possibly wikispecies. Thanks // FrankB 20:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories versus templates

[edit]

Where is a good wikipedia page that discusses the differences between wikipedia templates, wikipedia categories, categories of templates, and templates for categories? Mathiastck 00:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathiastck: Take a look at WP:CLN for the first two. The top level category for templates is at Category:Wikipedia templates; but Category:Wikipedia templates by topic may be more what you're looking for. The templates used in categories are Category:Category namespace templates. Happy editing! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this swift response! ;) Mathiastck (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning a template I want to find

[edit]

Is there a template that I can use that when placed on a page converts into the atricles name? for instance if I put {{Page}}(an example) it would automatically convert into the name of the article which it's placed on? Does such a thing exist? Wikidudeman (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a magic word: {{PAGENAME}}. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section removed

[edit]

I have removed an entire section which was recently added. Category pages are not the proper place for text like this, which would have been better placed on a Help: or WIkipedia: page. Furthermore, I don't believe that it respects WP:NPOV. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some strange edits

[edit]

Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Naval Historical Center

[edit]

Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Naval Historical Center, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I haven't been able to figure this out in a few minutes, maybe somebody else already knows the trick to work around this problem? A trailing colon in the URL of a hyperlink works reasonably-well in most web browsers, but when copying-and-pasting the URL to non-browser areas (i.e. via Skype) the trailing colon is not treated as part of the clickable hyperlink and the link potentially becomes invalid, as in the case found on this page. I attempted to correct for this by the following change: [[Special:Allpages/Template:]] changed to: [[Special:Allpages/Template%3A]] However, despite accepting the revision the Wikipedia server appears to automatically translate the encoded %3A back into a colon again when the HTML is rendered to the browser. What is the correct way, within Wiki markup, to escape the colon so that the %3A escape sequence is passed to the browser, even within the URL of a hyperlink? Thanks. --RiskNerd (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added an informational notice

[edit]

I just added the following informational notice to this category's page.

thanks. ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 06:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Wikipedia_templates&oldid=1241382218"