Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Template:Over-quotation

I encountered the clean-up {{Template:Over-quotation}} today and went to find out more info (as I have an article in mind where it would be appropriate), and I saw that it doesn't have very good documentation (also see: doc). If you try to insert this template, the following message appears: "Due to missing TemplateData, parameters for this template have been auto-generated. Please be aware that they may not be accurate." One of the parameters is only identified as +1. Unlike many clean-up templates, it does not include anything about when to remove the template. My experience with templates is limited, so I'm not well-positioned to improve this; I figured I'd leave a message in case someone who's more knowledgeable wants to take a look. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I assume you're using VE? The documentation looks fine to me, and the only thing I can think of is that VE doesn't really play well with /doc pages that don't have TemplateData (which is dumb, but so is that entire editing platform). To your secondary point I've added |removalnotice=yes for more info on removal. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Though I usually use VE, I used the source editor and clicked on the template icon to see what came up when I chose the Over-quotation template. Re: documentation, often a template page will include a clearer list of all of the parameters and one or more examples of what appears when one uses a template (e.g., Template:Cite tweet, where a full list of the parameters is in the box Full parameter set in horizontal format); I always find that helpful, though I recognize that it may not be necessary when the template only has a few parameters. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Holy crap, I've been editing almost a decade and I didn't know that existed in the source editor (though I suspect it's a fairly recent thing?). Adding TemplateData to the /doc isn't a bad idea if it'll solve this issue. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't know whether or not it's recent. I'm not a newbie, but I'm also not hugely experienced, and I noticed the icon recently (and then clicked on it to see what it does) when I was investigating whether there was a way to search for a template while in the source editor, in the same way that typing {{ will pull up a template search in the VE. Thank you for your help. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
The TemplateWizard in 2010 wikitext editor is 2020ish. Izno (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Which of those two template designs do you prefer?

Hi, recently, I have made the tempalte titled Public art in Warsaw listing monuments and sculptures in Warsaw, Poland. However, I'm not sure, which solution would be better, when in comes to former art, which was since removed. Currently, such works are marked with a symbol (†), and included with the rest of the sculptures. I copied such design from templates such as Template:Public art in Washington, D.C., and Template:Public art in Manhattan. However, I'm wondering if maybe putting them into their own category at the bottom wouldn't be better. I have made example of how it could look in this sandbox. Which design do you think would be better? Sincerely, Artemis Andromeda (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I think I prefer the dagger, but over all I find a design with more categories like {{Public art in London}} to be less overwhelming. You might check other large city templates in this search: Public art in *. YBG (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Question about non-standard template organization

Came across a bit of an oddball situation today that I wanted to ask for some input about.

Within the past couple of days, every "Districts of the [Province Name] Province" subcategory of Category:Districts of Peru got speedy-renamed to a version that decapitalized "province" — but because they were nearly all populated by templates instead of direct declarations on individual pages, the new categories were almost completely empty while the old ones were non-empty redlinks jamming up Special:WantedCategories. I was able to clean all of that up with an AWB run to rename the category in the templates, so that's not the problem, it's just background on how the matter came to my attention.

The problem is that the templates are quite oddly structured: each "province" has its own template name that transcludes a province category, but none of them are actually true templates: they're actually each just a wrapper which really just transcludes another template at the next higher region level instead of directly listing any districts itself. Ascope District, for example, has a {{Districts of Ascope Province}} template at the bottom of it, but the actual content of that template is really just a call of another template, {{Districts of La Libertad Region}}, and both of those templates are transcluding categories onto the pages so that each page is duplicate categorized in both Category:Districts of the Ascope province and its Category:Districts of the Department of La Libertad parent at the same time.

There are a few categories where the districts each just have the regional-level template directly on them and are manually categorized for province — but many, many more are doing this two-step "province-level template wrapping a wider region-level template" thing.

Obviously this isn't how templates are supposed to be structured, but I don't want to just unilaterally do anything about them myself without any discussion about the best ways to fix it, so I'm bringing it to the project's attention. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

So I just delved into the history at {{Districts of Ascope Province}}, and saw that it predates {{Districts of La Libertad Region}} by about six months. But on May 1, 2008, the region template was created - apparently by just incorporating the content from all of the applicable province templates - and the province template changed to simply transclude the region template as a whole. There are a couple of approaches that could be pursued here: 1) make all the province templates redirects to their region template. 2) Rebuild each of the province templates as they were in early 2008, and leave the region template for its own transclusions, possibly making the region template a glorified wrapper for transcluding the relevant province templates. 3) Keep the general content as is, but build logic in the region template for a province parameter that could be called from the province templates that would enable each province's content to be featured in some way. VanIsaac, GHTV contrabout 19:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
There is another thing that needs to be done, which is to get those article-space categories out of the templates. We have long abandoned the use of templates for anything other than maintenance categories, and they really shouldn't be doing that (for pretty much this exact reason). Primefac (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, that's obviously another concern: templates really shouldn't be artificially transcluding mainspace content categories onto articles, precisely because that results in duplicate categorization and/or messes like me having to gnome my way through fixing 100+ redlinked categories this morning. But obviously we can't just immediately remove the categories from the templates until we've ensured that they're all directly declared on the appropriate pages themselves, which seems like a bit of a...project, I suppose. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
I just filed a bot task to deal with the cats issue. Primefac (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Okay, my short answer to the bigger question is that I think the Province templates need to just be redirected to the District templates; another example is {{Districts of Bolívar Province}} which (other than the category issue) is literally just a transclusion of {{Districts of La Libertad Region}}. I don't have an issue with the name of the template call (since it's accurate) but nesting transclusions like that leads to issues. I'll see if I can whip up a (relatively) quick fix for the cat issue, but after that's sorted we should just redir everything to their respective base template. Primefac (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

If you are interested in WP:Templates for discussion, you may recall that each Tfd idiscussion has a small set of convenience links at the top, generated by {{Tfd links}} and the underlying module. An enhancement request is open to add a new convenience link, and your feedback would be appreciated at WT:Templates for discussion#Module:Tfd links edit request: add new link. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Looking to create Encyclopedia Source templates.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities uses Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities *extensively*. It had 20 editions starting in 1879 with the last in 1977 with the last being over 600 pages. We'd like to create Encyclopedia Source templates looking like {{Bairds14|345-346}} . At this point starting out, the templates would only have one argument starting out, page/pages. Are there suggestions on templates to use as a guide or any issue with this idea?Naraht (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Check out Category:Encyclopedia source templates for many examples. Instead of a numerical parameter ({{Bairds14|345-346}}), it would be more flexible to pass along the in-source parameters to a CS1 template ({{Bairds14|pp=345-346}}). Your template could then use |p=, |pp=, and |at= in the article. If the encyclopedia template uses Module:Template wrapper, then it will automatically support those parameters. {{cite Catholic Encyclopedia}} works this way. Rjjiii (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
@Naraht Hey, idk if this is the best place to mention this, but I checked Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities and saw some of the discussion about which template to base yours on. There isn't going to be anything lost really choosing between {{cite encyclopedia}} and {{cite book}}. Cite book has a |section= parameter that works the same cite encycolpedia's |entry= parameter. There is no difference in the output, just the parameter names and setup. You can also use {{citation}} with Module:Citation mode; I think it does have less useful metadata, but I don't remember exactly why. Feel free to {{ping}} me if you get stuck at any point. Rjjiii (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Remove ifeq statement when substing a template

I'm working on a template to expediate the expansion of a certain type of tables with location data, and I have an #ifeq statement that stays in source with the #ifeq statement. I need this to be where it is otherwise links to Georgia will be sent to a disambiguation page instead of Georgia (U.S. state). The #ifeq statement in the source doesn't affect where the source goes and is invisible to most readers, but unnecessarily inflates the page's source length, especially when this template is intended to save time when being reused tens or even hundreds of times on a single page. What should I do in this instance? The template is at User:Departure–/iemlisttemplate. Thanks! Departure– (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

You can subst parser functions the same as other templates. See also Help:Safesubst. Izno (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
I spent some time in the past building new templates and better ones, and I found that a large number of #ifeq functions could be replaced by one or more #switch functions. If you know how or learn how to construct switches, then you might find that they are better and faster than using many #ifeq functions. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Even better, that huge block can be replaced by the already-existing {{USStateNameToAbb}}. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone here. I'm going to be experimenting with this type of template to save me time from now. Departure– (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikilink text colour output

Hi all, new to wikitext; coding experience is limited to the brain cells I lost writing broken MATLAB programs at uni. I'm looking at making the text output for the black|disqualified|dsq parameter at Template:Motorsport result to be always white, including wikilinks. Any help would be greatly appreciated, gen-AI has been completely hopeless at pointing me in the right direction!

Outputs
Current Desired
SPA
FEA
DSQ 		SPA
FEA
DSQ

MB2437 21:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there is definitely a need to lighten the link color to aid accessibility. There is also a need to distinguish link text from non-link text even when the background color changes. Perhaps a lighter blue text?
Outputs
Current Desired
SPA
FEA
DSQ 		SPA
FEA
DSQ
P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree, but all-white text on black is the long-standing convention for WP:MOTORSPORT (we recently received suggestions to improve the accessibility of our colour palette, which were swiftly pushed away to avoid needing to alter 20,000+ articles). Just looking to simplify this for editors in the WP as entering a disqualified result currently requires at least some knowledge of wikimarkup to keep it all-white. MB2437 23:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Assistance needed

Having a problem with List of House members of the 45th Parliament of Canada, for which I need some help from someone with more skill in template coding than I've got.

The problem is that the members tables are zooming past the right margin of the display window, and thus covering the right-hand "tools" menu in a way that renders those links nearly impossible to use — basically you have to try to navigate a link into the whitespace between two tables in order to actually click on it — so I need somebody to look into whether there's any code in them that needs to be changed to confine them to the article display margins. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Someone has set minimum width values on the columns, such as min-width:28em; on many of the "Titles" columns. Since most of the "Titles" columns are empty, I would just remove that column's min-width and let the tables figure out an appropriate width. Also, you might want to hack your .css file to allow the content column (the part that is not the two sidebars) to take up more space in your browser window. Vector 2022's defaults are pretty lame in that regard. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Error message issued by Template:DGRG

Dear Colleagues,
I hope I have come to the correct place to report the following problem; if not, then I apologise.
I have just come across the subject template, and was hoping that someone with the appropriate coding skills would please fix the error message issued by default:

{{cite encyclopedia}}: Empty citation (help): Missing or empty |title= (help)

Adding the 'title=' parameter ({{DGRG|title=Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography}}) fixes the error message but simply duplicates the book title in double quotation marks, which doesn't seem useful:

 This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Smith, William, ed. (1854–1857). "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography". Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography. London: John Murray.

Very many thanks in advance.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 15:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pdebee, what entry in the encyclopedia are you citing or crediting? The template is written so that it needs either |wstitle= for entries available on wikisource or |title=. This seems intentional. There is a maintenance category for pages that don't specify an article in the encyclopedia at: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the DGRG with no article parameter. I can't think of a great alternative. For example, some templates will default to using the title of the Wikipedia article, but many of these entries won't match the Wikipedia entries. For example, DGRG has 3 entries for Athens all with a different spelling that a human editor would need to specify. Rjjiii (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Dear Rjjiii,
I was looking at Exilles and noticed that the {{SmithDGRG}} template (which redirects to {{DGRG}}) is used in the 'Sources' section. This prompted me to try and fix the red error message, hence the above alert when I realised I couldn't. Thank you for your cogent explanation above, which I only saw just now, as I was offline this weekend.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 10:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
@Pdebee and Rjjiii: Fixed I went ahead and modified the underlying {{Cite DGRG}} template to handle the case when neither |title= nor |wstitle= are set. — hike395 (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Dear Hike395,
Thank you so much for fixing this error condition so promptly; your technical assistance is much appreciated!
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 10:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Template doc not showing as anticipated

Hi all, I have created documentation for Template:British university, but it is not showing on the main page as it does in the separate documentation article (shortcut box and see also section missing). Is there any way I can fix this? MB2437 08:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed it with a purge of the template page. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Standardization of template formats and measurements

Why do sidebar and series templates have different widths? Here are two examples:

Can this be fixed so they are all the same width?

I'm sure this is likely addressed elsewhere, so point me in the right direction... >>> -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

On desktop resolution these appear to be the same width to me. A look at the CSS matches that expectation. Izno (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm using Firefox, and they are definitely different, regardless of the zoom factor. To spare my old eyes, I usually use 120-133%. They are clearly different widths to me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
They are not, according to the CSS and my own experience (Win10, Firefox 140, Vector 2022), which doesn't vary on any of those dimensions. I can verify that in safe mode they are identical widths, so I suspect you have some gadget or anon that is causing the issue. You are welcome to upload a WP:SHOT I suppose, but I would guess no one will be able to help you. Izno (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm running Firefox 140.0.4 and have either the same or a similar mismatch in template widths. I am at default magnification (100%). There is something going on here. VanIsaac, GHTV contrabout 05:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
They are both using Module:Sidebar. The default width is 22em. Both templates try for 22em, but the second one has an image that is specified as 250px, so (for me) the second template is rendered wider than 22em. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
That would explain a mismatch, but not why at least one person doesn't have a mismatch. :D Izno (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
You lot are using Monobook. The font size on Monobook (and a few other older skins) will cause the 22em to be interpreted there as a smaller width than the image. Izno (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm using Vector 2022, FWIW, and I see the lower template wider than the upper one (about 264px versus 239px). – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Did you set your font size to Small in V22? That still doesn't affect the font size sufficiently for me. I get a Standard font width computed at about 310px for both and in Small I get a computed width of 271px.
Y'all going to need to verify this issue exists for you in safe mode and review your preferences both onwiki and personal for font size adjustments. you may have made. Skins that aren't V22 are one way to have this issue (I experienced it in Monobook and Modern but neither Vector, choosing to use a non default skin is your choice but will likely have negative effects like this). Izno (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
In safe mode, the top one is still narrower. It looks like I have the font size set to "Small", which was the old default. When set to "Standard" or "Large", the boxes are the same size (272px wide for me in Standard). When I am logged out, the top box is slightly smaller when the font size is set to "Small", and the boxes are the same width at the other font sizes. It still appears to me that the fixed 250px image size is causing the width difference. There are many reasons to avoid fixed px sizes for images; this appears to be one of them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
No, it's clearly the image, but that doesn't explain why I have a roughly 10% larger font size by default than you do even in safe mode. Izno (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Font sizes are chosen in browser settings. I have mine set to 14, with a minimum size of 11 so that I never get micro-text. Even a 14-point default will probably render differently for different viewers on different operating systems with different fonts. There is no way to get a flexible grouping of web objects like this to render the same for all viewers, as far as I know. The web is not PDF or print. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I am using Monobook. Whatever the case, it appears that the image is the problem. Can that be fixed? The boxes should be the same width for everyone, regardless of their systems or preferences. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
We should not optimize for skins not used by, well, most of our readers. So no, I disagree with changing the image based on your experience. Izno (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Input requested at this discussion regarding permitting tangential links into navboxes per this edit on the explanatory essay --woodensuperman 08:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes § Flags and coats of arms

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Flags and coats of arms, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Coleisforeditor (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Coleisforeditor, please double-check your link, as a discussion of that name does not appear to exist. Primefac (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I have corrected the link. Coleisforeditor (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

New(-ish) Wikipedia Library access template

Just a note to draw people's attention to a template I created recently: Template:Wikipedia Library access (alias TM:Twlac). I created it as a way to avoid the hassle involved in manually checking whether or not TWL has access to a particular source.

The idea is that regular (non-TWL) URLs and DOIs should be used in citations, to ensure that readers who don't have access to TWL (ie. the vast majority of readers) can access the ordinary link; this new template could then be tagged on to the end of the citation to direct any future editors with TWL access to an accessible version of the source. The template can take a URL, a DOI, or a JSTOR ID, and converts the input into TWL link format.

Markup Renders as 
{{Wikipedia Library access|https://www.example.com}}

Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.

(See the documentation for further examples.)

I have very little prior experience of making or editing templates, so I'm very open to feedback and contributions to any aspects of the template that need improvement/could be made more efficient/etc.

On a broader scale, I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on the template's suitability for being included in mainspace articles, as opposed to just on talk/project pages for instance. Given that such a tiny proportion of readers could make use of the link, is it actually beneficial to add this template to mainspace citations, or would it just confuse/distract readers? Should a feature be added to the template so that it only displays for auto- or extended-confirmed users—ie. the users for whom the template is most likely to be relevant? Or should the template be limited to use in non-article namespaces such as talk pages?

If anyone has any thoughts on these issues, or on any other aspect of the template, please feel free to share them on the template's talk page; I'm really keen to get an idea of the community's views on this! Thank you in advance! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Given that such a tiny proportion of readers could make use of the link... that would be my only concern with using it in mainspace; the Library is (as far as I understand it) primarily a tool for editors, not readers. That being said, I think it would be a great tool for talk page discussions, in particular those looking for RS to support a given statement. Primefac (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, yes that was my concern too. What are your thoughts on the option of using (for instance) Template:Main other and Template:If autoconfirmed to only display the template in mainspace for autoconfirmed users? Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
If you didn't want it to be used in the article space, then wrapping it in {{main other}} would be a good option. Not sure if the second option is as good, since it would mean even talk page discussions would exclude IP editors. Primefac (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
I was actually thinking of combining the two, so that the logic would be:
  • Is the template in mainspace?
    • No: template is displayed
    • Yes: is the user is autoconfirmed, confirmed, XC or administrator?
      • Yes: template is displayed
      • No: template is hidden
I'm not sure whether this kind of thing is normally done in templates, but I think in this case it might work quite well? Unless there's something I'm missing—which is quite possible, as I have very little template experience! Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
I mean, I'm just one editor with one opinion. Your proposed solution would work if the template is designed to be used in the mainspace for editors to use. I think making that determination is the best first step. Primefac (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Of course, and I'm still hoping to get a wider discussion going to identify a consensus on the best application of the template; your comments have prompted me to clarify the logic behind the possible options as I see them, so I appreciate that! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Haven't considered all the implications yet, but have you considered using it with param |via= of citation templates? What I usually do whenever I gain access to a source via TWL, is leave the normal, non-TWL link in param |url=, and then add |via=[[WP:TWL|TWL]] to the citation. Your template suggests an alternate approach: leave the original url in |url= as before, but now use a different version of your template which would drop the 'available to users...' verbiage, and instead do this:
  • Is the user autoconfirmed, confirmed, or XC? (don't think you need to include admin here)
    • Yes: emit citation param |via=[[<TWL url to resource>|TWL]], piping TWL to the resource
    • No: emit citation param |via=[[WP:TWL|TWL]] linking The Wikipedia Library
That may be too radically different than what you had in mind, and I hope to come back with comments more directly related to how you conceive of it. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Interesting! So in that scenario, would the template actually be used as the input for the |via= param in citation templates (eg. ... |via={{twlac|...}}) so that the main citation template will output — via [<TWL url> The Wikipedia Library]. (or — via The Wikipedia Library. if the user isn't autoconfirmed)? Or would it be added outside the citation template but mimicking the |via= param? As mentioned, I'm a complete template novice, so I'm not sure whether there would be COinS issues if it were used inside a citation template. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
I was actually thinking of it being used inside, as the value of param |via=; if you are not familiar with that citation param, see Template:Cite journal#TemplateData, and scroll about 80% of the way down that long section, or search-on-page for 'via'. But in a way, it is sufficiently different from what you had in mind, that maybe it should be a new template. And your synopsis was correct; the TWL url would of course be enclosed in single brackets, and without the pipe. Mathglot (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Don't worry, I am familiar with the 'via' parameter, I just wasn't sure whether there would be COinS issues that might prevent the use of the template inside a citation template! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
|via= should not be used for this. The analog (pun intended): would you do this with checking a book out from The New York Public Library? Izno (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
See also this recent discussion, I suppose. Izno (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't see an analogy here. I would not do it with checking out a physical book from the NYPL, nor would I do it to link a digitized book at Google or Internet Archive that happened to be a scan from the NYPL collection, as that information is irrelevant to someone seeking to verify the article content by locating the resource. In neither case is it relevant to the reader/verifier to know that somebody found the book at NYPL, whether hardbound book, or an online version.
However, the same cannot be said for resources discovered at some online repository like MUSE or Gale, or a search platform like TWL. In these cases, it is highly relevant to know where the item was found, to help a reader/researcher who wishes to find it. Users of TWL know that the search feature is finicky, and the same search that shows zero results at the top level of TWL search, (or too many results, like the 35,000 for 'OED') will find what you want if you go to the proper access link for the TWL partner, and search from there. Once you find the resource you are looking for, it is worth preserving the TWL url to save other editors the trouble, or even to show that the resource exists online at all.
So, I think preserving the TWL url resulting from a successful TWL search is well worth it for verifiability, as well as for the productivity of future researchers. It turns out that trying to store it in the |via= param works, but is accompanied by a CS1 warning about urls found in non-url parameters, and trying to store it in a url-holding param like |entry-url= is worse, because it gets stripped. So I guess we have all but reached a dead end at least with respect to current behavior of the citation templates and |via=. A hidden comment could be used, but would be missed by most of the users who might have been helped by a TWL link in the citation. Mathglot (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Hmm... I think what @Izno may have been getting at (please correct me if I'm wrong!) is that a lot of users, myself included, likely use TWL not necessarily as a search platform but as an institutional login, like you get from a university or another academic institution. The |via= parameter isn't used for institutional logins to an online publisher's website, for instance, and to my knowledge a lot of sources aren't actually hosted on TWL's database but rather have dedicated TWL URLs on their host site; in that case, |via= probably isn't the best parameter, and having the template as a separate tag on the end of the citation would probably work better. Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
If what you say is right, then the idea of tagging something to the end of the citation just says to me that the citation is missing a param that should go inside it. But you would need consensus for that, so maybe creating the template as a tag-on is a halfway house that might get people exposed to it, and drum up support for further action. (Or not.) Mathglot (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes I guess that is a possibility; if so, I agree that any change to that effect would need to have further discussion, so this might help to provide an example. Pineapple Storage (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say I've edited Template:Wikipedia Library access/sandbox to add {{main other|<span class="autoconfirmed-show">|}} and {{main other|</span>|}} around the template. This feels a bit inelegant, and I don't know how to get the 'demo' parameter for Template:Main other to work properly (eg. for Template:Wikipedia Library access/testcases), so if anyone has time and knows of a way the sandbox version could be improved, that would be much appreciated! Pineapple Storage (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Are you familiar with templates {{If autoconfirmed}} and {{If extended confirmed}}? They wouldn't change anything for users, but might make it a bit easier for you (and other template editors) to follow and modify, perhaps. Otoh, your version would probably have fewer curlies, so maybe in the end your way is easier. Anyway, those templates might come in handy in some other situation which is less squirrely than this one. Mathglot (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes for sure, and that was what I was originally thinking of doing (see above), but I just checked and it looks like Template:If autoconfirmed already contains Template:Main other, so it felt like nesting the two would be a bit redundant? Again though, I might be missing something. Pineapple Storage (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Oops, carry on, you seem to have thought of everything. Pretty good, for someone just getting into templating. Mathglot (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! :D I think it's just because I'm still in the conscious incompetence phase, so I try to look for all the possible options before making any changes... Input and improvements from more experienced template editors are still very much welcome! Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Another quick note: I've been playing around with Template:Wikipedia Library access/sandbox again and I've reached a bit of an impasse. I ended up opting for the {{#tag:span|content|attribute="name"}} magic word to wrap the template in span tags, with a class="autoconfirmed-show" attribute which is conditional on a namespace check. (The sandbox version is currently set to not show for non-autoconfirmed users in Template namespace, ie. {{ns:10}}, to try and allow a demo in Template:Wikipedia Library access/testcases; for the real template, this would obviously be replaced with {{ns:0}} to hide it for non-autoconfirmed users in mainspace only.) I've been checking whether the template is showing up on testcases using my alternate (non-autoconfirmed) account User:Pineapple Storage 2 in another browser, and I can't get it to work properly, ie. display for autoconfirmed and hide for non-autoconfirmed; at the moment, it's displaying for both. I'm having real trouble working out how to fix it and I think some fresh eyes on the issue could help, so if anyone has time to look over it and see if you can identify the problem, that would be very much appreciated! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Before even attempting a response to a detailed question about a template with a lot of levels of nesting, I would look to see how easy it is to follow the conditionals, and in this case, it is very difficult, so I would not attempt it without pretty-printing the code first, but even that is non-trivial (we should have a tool for that) so I quickly gave up. See something like Template:Chart for a pretty-printed template. (I'm not sure how you are even debugging at all, without having a pretty-printed version; if you are doing that offline or between saves, it's perfectly all right to release a pretty-printed version that works properly.) Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I've had real trouble with that too... I did try pretty-printing it but beyond a certain point, adding line breaks etc actually affected the output/functionality of the template, so I didn't want to proceed any further and risk messing the whole thing up even more. Thank you for linking Template:Chart; that template seems to use <!-- --> notation to enclose line breaks and indentation, which (now that I think about it) seems like an obvious solution! I will have a go at implementing that and get back to you. Thank you again! Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
@Mathglot Sorry about that, I've gone through and prettified the code at Template:Wikipedia Library access/sandbox so hopefully it's now a bit more approachable! Feel free to tweak the formatting etc. if you notice any room for improvement/clarification. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I think I've now actually fixed the issue of the <attribute class="autoconfirmed-show"/> not being applied to the template... I don't think the function recognised the attribute if it was enclosed in a conditional expression, so to fix this I just duplicated the whole template inside a conditional expression, with the only difference being the presence/absence of the tag attribute, based on the namespace detected. Again, this feels a bit inelegant, so I'm very open to suggestions on how this can be streamlined! Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Could this be added as a parameter to the standard cite book/cite journal templates? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's a possibility... maybe in the future after further discussion, and once the exact functionality has been ironed out? Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Sure. Also, have you thought about having a "short" option for the template? Something like {{ProQuest}} (ProQuest 734005592) or {{EBSCOhost}} (EBSCOhost 129997295), where it would just display TWL link. That would be a shorter one that could be used in the |id= parameter in citation templates. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
It would fit those quite well, since ProQuest, EBSCOhost and the other similar templates are also paywalled or login-gated, like TWL. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, this is definitely something I'll add in as an option! Thank you for raising it! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

New template: Template:Wrong ISBN

I've created a new ambox template for articles that contain multiple ISBNs that don't match the books they're listed alongside (often found through the Check Wikipedia project's errors CW Error #70, CW Error #71, CW Error #72, and CW Error #73.) It's at Template:Wrong ISBN and sends to Category:Articles with incorrect ISBNs . It's my first template, so hopefully everything works okay - please let me know if there's any bugs. Moose (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

See my feedback on a similar post. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Template:Format link has been nominated for merging with Template:Format linkr. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. FaviFake (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

We have {{Lua}} and {{Uses Wikidata}} for use on template doc pages, is there someting similar to show that a templatestyles is in use? See for example the doc of Template:Infobox company, where Template:Infobox company/styles.css is not mentioned at all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Someone put {{Uses TemplateStyles}} at Module:Convert. Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Where I've moved templates with an underlying metatemplate (infobox, navbox, sidebar, etc) to using TemplateStyles, I haven't been putting the styles page on the documentation. But yes, the right template is the above. Izno (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment requested at Template_talk:Pagelist#ER

We are discussing a change to the template, please see Template_talk:Pagelist#ER. --FaviFake (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Template:Discrimination

There is a discussion at Template:Discrimination; when you look at the template navigation between different types of discrimination, it's useful. But... by the time you get to "manifestations" you can see it's become "stuff everything into this template". I feel if it were a category, there should be a top level category and lower level ones, and everything has been stuffed into this "top level" template. Like "Music in the movement against apartheid" isn't a top-level article in subject matter.

One of the users pointed out there are navigation templates that already exist for smaller groups of sub articles. So if there was a way to make a top level template where you get to another top level article, then a second template for that subject area, that would best.

The editors we have are mostly in agreement/open to discussion, but I think none of want to mess up such a big template across so many articles. There are some odd placements too, like Han Chauvanism (similiar to white supremacy, but for the Han ethnic group) is listed under social and not... race / ethnicity. Denaar (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Denaar: I think that you mean Template talk:Discrimination#Scope: Articles on discriminatory subjects. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Is Template:Editintro documentation still needed?

With the usual noinclude formatting, the documentation and the categories would still appear on any page that you're editing, but this template avoids this. – it seems that this limitation has been fixed in MediaWiki. E.g. I don't see <noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude> of Template:Edit semi-protected/editintro when clicking on the button "Submit an edit request" at MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext.

If it's true for editintros, it is probably also true for editnotices. I checked on the template {{Unsourced edit requests editnotice}} and on Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Chiranjeevi Sarja: Special:Diff/1318861659 and Special:Diff/1318862224. There is no sign of <noinclude>...</noinclude> both on Special:Edit/Talk:Chiranjeevi Sarja and on Special:NewSection/Talk:Chiranjeevi Sarja.

It seems that Template:Editintro documentation is implementing a workaround that is no longer needed. Or am I missing something? —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the problem this was avoiding was fixed in 2011. Given how our editnotice system works (the MediaWiki-namespace messages transclude {{editnotice load}}), it's clearly not needed there, and I doubt it was really even in 2008–2009 when per-page editnotices could exist in the MediaWiki namespace. Anomie⚔ 13:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
It is mildly annoying that there isn't really a mechanism for "there is a consensus that we don't need this template any more" deletions unless we IAR a G6, so I suppose unless someone is super-keen on keeping this template a pro-forma TFD will be needed to nuke it (I don't see any issue with just deleting it). Primefac (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I think the Wikipedia:What G6 is not people would rather we just IAR-delete it without naming a CSD criterion instead of IAR-G6ing it. Anomie⚔ 14:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm fine with that too. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
lolsob Izno (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
The remaining transclusions of Template:Editintro documentation, which aren't in user pages, were removed in these 11 edits. The only interesting mention of it in documentation has also been removed.
I've started a TFD. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Editnotices/Namespace/Template § Links to sandbox and testcases regardless of their existence. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Module:Archives rewrite and question

Page watchers may be interested in this discussion: Template talk:Talk header § Module:Archives rewrite and question. Izno (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Template space alias

In case you haven't noticed yet, the template space alias is now "TM:". Just as WP:PAGENAME can be used as a shortcut for Wikipedia:PAGENAME, TM:PAGENAME is a shortcut for Template:PAGENAME. Just spreading the word. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Help with addition to template

I am looking to add a field to the "Infobox short story" template but am not too confident in making the change without breaking something. Would anyone from the WikiProject perhaps be able to help me? McPhail (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

So you can actually request an addition at the talk page for the template. Just describe what you'd like to add and someone there should be able to help. They know their infobox, but most importantly they know the history of the template and whether your request is appropriate or not. Good luck! VanIsaac, GHTV contrabout 19:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
I would also highly, highly suggest making your change in the template's sandbox, because even if you "break" something, you won't actually break anything! That being said, feel free to ping me on the template talk if you need any help. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Template disambiguation#Better warning

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Template disambiguation § Better warning. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Template Talk:Infobox rugby league team season § Adding/fixing provision for third kits/jerseys?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template Talk:Infobox rugby league team season § Adding/fixing provision for third kits/jerseys?. I'd appreciate a hand with sorting out why third/alternate kits don't show up in the infoboxes and instead throw preview errors, since it seems my talk message didn't get the response I was hoping for last month. Thanks in advance, Hullian111 (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Page watchers may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:User-multi § Show IP links. Izno (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Feedback requested at multiple template move discussion

There is a discussion going on now regarding the move of a dozen welcome templates. Your feedback would be welcome at Template talk:Welcome-anon-npov#Requested move 5 December 2025. Mathglot (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Modification for the template

It has been discussed here that template:page numbers needed would be better if modified to have an added parameter that, by toggling it, you can choose if some references don't have page numbers, or not toggle it and it will say that all the article references are missing page numbers, like it does with the article and section parameters that you can toggle to show that. You may contribute to the discussion and share your feedback. Vastmajority20025 (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

discussion

here. 77qq 💬 contributions 02:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Alt text templates at TfD

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 January 9 § Template:Alternative text missing, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 10:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Combining templates

Not super smart on templates, but is it possible to combine {{Should be PNG}} and {{PNG version available}} into a single template? I am imagining something like {{PNG image}} with a parameter to change the type to either of the two current templates and also add the appropriate category to mark the content. This would also open the possibility for future types to be created as needed instead of creating even more templates. Evan.oltmanns (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would make sense to combine them, given they're giving two rather distinct messages. Primefac (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
The idea would be to use #switch in order to handle the appropriate output text, category, and formatting as needed. Evan.oltmanns (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
I can see the logic in desire for a single template for low-quality images both before and after they have PNG alternates, but the function in those two instances is so divergent, I would hesitate to make a template with the double function. The proposed name is also problematic as it suggests that the tagged file is a PNG, rather than it needs or points to a PNG alternative, but that's a much more transient concern. The inexorable problem I am envisioning is that you either have to have an explicit flag to choose between the two behaviors, or you set it based on a parameter value for the alternate PNG version filename being provided. If you use the explicit flag, you run into the issue that not providing that filename presents an ambiguity - was the flag parameter set in error, or is there a mystery PNG version out there that we don't know where it's located? On the other hand, filename parameter-based functionality precludes tracking categories for files that ostensibly have a PNG version available, but the filename isn't provided. It is a fundamental drawback to combining these two templates that cannot be overcome: you lose either functionality or introduce ambiguity to your maintenance tracking. Templates need to be designed on the basis of fixing imperfect usage, not on the assumption of perfect rollout. VanIsaac, GHTV contrabout 01:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
If there were an argument here for a merge, it would be {{should be PNG}} and {{should be SVG}} as {{should be file type|SVG}}, but even those are pretty different. Izno (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion: add a simple beginner example

Hi! I am a new contributor learning templates.

I noticed that the page is very detailed, but beginners might benefit from a very small, simple example early on (for example showing

This is an example of a template. For help with templates, see Help:Template.

usage with a short explanation).

If this sounds reasonable, I would be happy to help draft the text here. Thank you! Stitipragyan barik (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, which page(s) are/were you looking at for help? We have (for better or worse) a ton of pages related to templates, including WP:Templates and Help:Template, so what you're looking to create might already exist (just want to make sure of that before time and effort is spent). Primefac (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Somewhat related discussion from a couple years ago: Help talk:Introduction#Why is there no "template" sub-topic?. —⁠andrybak (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Assistance on Infobox social media personality

I made a suggestion on adding another site to it in mid-January, got decently positive feedback with a request to do more research, and then I got busy for awhile before I could finish that research. I finished a week ago, and my reading of the consensus is that it should be added, but neither of the other editors in the thread have responded, and given that I do not have much experience with templates, I do not want to make the change myself without further feedback, so I am wondering if someone else could look over the situation and see if they agree it should be added and that my code is not broken. 1brianm7 (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Help with a WP banner template image

I recently fixed up a couple Templates using File:Barnstar search rescue.png, but I'm having trouble with the last one, Template:WikiProject_Article_Rescue_Squadron. Nothing I do seems to make the image appear properly. It currently includes: 

|IMAGE_LEFT          = Barnstar search rescue.png
|IMAGE_LEFT_SIZE     = 70px

This seems like it should work. I tried adding "File:" to the IMAGE_LEFT parameter and removing the IMAGE_LEFT_SIZE parameter. Neither made the image show up in the preview. What am I doing wrong? TIA! WidgetKid converse 15:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. What doesn't look right to you? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
@MSGJ, it now appears to be working fine. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Maybe I just needed to clear my browser cache or something. Thanks anyway! WidgetKid Converse 19:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates/Archive_9&oldid=1358724265"