Talk:Template

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Viability of Wiki template entry after See Also

Is there a better way to format this page?

[edit] Technobabble in Wiki template entry

What exactly is the phrase "The template declaration is on [[Template:template-name]]." supposed to mean? (It doesn't make any sense to me ;)) -- ??

It is necessary to distinguish "sub-template reference" and "sub-template declaration", see Template language features... it is a very different use, for example, for "disambig" template:
  • {{disambig}} is used on this article, is a template reference to the disambig template.
  • [[Template:disambig]] as a Template:disambig, links to the template declaration, and you can edit it (or see the History, Source code, etc.).
-- ?? 23 Nov 2006

[edit] Genetics What?!?

I am just wondering why we need to put 4 different types of stp templates on this page. And why would it have 2 completely off topic stup templates on it? just wanted to see if there was a reason that was there 70.234.134.79 21:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In response, there seem to be several topics relating to the word "template" on one page. By most people's standards, that's too many. (see statement under support below.)
WikiPrez 10:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-reference

Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference is a widely-accepted guideline, for reasons stated on that page. Why do you think it should be ignored here, Zunaid? Yes, the link at the top is useful for editors, but most visitors to Wikipedia aren't editors. They'll just be confused and distracted by the link. Any remotely experienced editor (probably almost all of those who know what a template is, in fact) will know to try Wikipedia:Template before just Template. And anyone who tries editing the page, of course (meaning that ipso facto they're editors), will see the message anyway. So why ignore the guideline here? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, could people discuss this on the talk page when they revert? There's an established Wikipedia guideline here that's supposed to represent a fairly broad consensus of editors. Why do you think any substantial purpose is served by the self-reference? Any editor experienced enough to have heard of templates will think to check Wikipedia:Template. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I found the link helpful. I know better now of course. --2-bits 22:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs further information

  1. Template in the engineering sense
  2. Templates for artists

Anca 01:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This should be a disambiguation page

It appears that there are multiple different "Templates" being talked about. The standard way to handle this is to create a disambiguation page and split off the individual specific sense of the term (genetic, computer science, etc.) into their own articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.73 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 10 February 2006 UTC.

[edit] Support:

  • I totally agree. A template is not technology concept. That is an aspect of the concept, sure, but there needs to be some disambiguation. --Davidp 22:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It's too big as it is now. Disambiguate away. --Hughcharlesparker 09:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. If I knew how to do that, I would try it, but alas, I don't! If someone could tell me exactly how, I would be grateful. Josh W 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, by all means. The page is just way too confusing and could actually be misleading. Wikipedia:Disambiguation, anyone?
WikiPrez 10:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think this one is a no-brainer.--Wikiwriter706 21:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I came here for yet another use of the word: a NASCAR template. I found a cool free use image of officials checking a car that I was about to add. There should be another separate page for that use. Royalbroil 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (WikiProject NASCAR)

[edit] Oppose:

[edit] Neutral:

[edit] Comments:

  • I'm too new here to figure out how to do that though. :) 131.107.0.73 00:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I feel for you ... I'm new too, though I have some time today to figure some of this stuff out. It's not precisely transparent, but the fact that everything is editable actually serves to muddle me even further (LOL). I'm still learning about how to use standard conventions, let alone how to do something as mystifying as disambiguation. Em3rald 20:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now a disambiguation page

As the consensus seemed to be to turn this into a disambiguation page, but nobody was sure how to do so, I've now done so. Where possible I've followed the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages), and linked to the most appropriate topical article. I've also linked to Wiktionary. I've left Pattern in the see also section since it is closely related to a template in general, but is it's own topic. To adhere to the style guidelines some of the extraneous details (especially for document templates, genetics, and orthopedic surgery) have been simplified now. If possible, put additional detail on an appropriate topic page and not on this disambig page. -- Dmeranda 22:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just Reorganized - no adds/deletes

Reorganized the list and moved Stencil to 'see also' RCEberwein | Talk 09:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] terminology and hierarchy collision

Some issues to consider:

  • 1) "mail merge template" does not meet the definition of "standardized file types" as described in template (file format) (i.e., mail merge templates do not require a unique file extension);
  • 2) although a "mail merge" template is a template in the generic sense, it is also a regular document in the 'technical' sense (i.e., has the same file extension as other documents).
  • 3) word processing document (e.g., *.doc) vs word processing template (e.g., *.dot) indicates mail merge meets the definition of 'document' more than 'template', because it (may) end in the *.doc extension;
  • 4) the mail merge article already links to this page as the definition for 'template', and this page links right back to the article, a bit circular;
  • 5) because of these factors, mail merge could feasibly be 'outlined' in many different ways, depending on how you look at it and how technically you define "document" and "template" (words that are inherently broad in scope).

because 'mail merge' has relevance as a kind of document, and because mail merge is depending on this page as a kind of definition, I moved mail merge in the relative position of the heirarchy in this page. dr.ef.tymac 22:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Circular reference is OK in this case considering that one may start with the mail merge page and then discover the broader usage of templates or the reverse. I also think the arrangement is working fine with your last edit. There's here enough that that any reader should understand the points you mention. If there is anything confusing about the subject, it should be clarified in the mail merge article. Oicumayberight 23:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template system?? (redirecting here)

A "Template system" IS NOT a "Template engine", need page to Disambiguation on

  • Templating_system = Templating_systems = Template_system = Template_systems = NEED ARTICLE? it is about
  • Web template system = well defined
Ok, I am having a little trouble understanding, so I ask here for some clarification so we can immediately fix whatever is not working properly. If I did something to mess things up, I definitely apologize. Can you please describe:
  • 1) the specific link(s) or page(s) that is (are) not working the way you expected; and
  • 2) what you consider the "correct" behavior/status of the item(s) in (1) above so we can address the situation. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 09:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok I took a look at it and found (I think) the broken you were talking about. It is fixed now. Good eye in spotting it. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 10:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template Systems article sugestion

(draft text to a new Template system article, please change/update here)

Template Systems are systems for software development or Publishing process. In general they are modular self-contained sub-system, to use into another system. They are characterized by (parts):

  • Template engine: the software, it processes input, transforming into output. It have two typical entities on input:
    • The template: a "recipe" (template specifications) with web output fragments, to be transform.
    • Content resource: a input supplier, like a SQL database or a XML file.
  • Template language standards: the language of the "recipe".

There are many kinds of Domain-Specific template systems:


Revisions log:

Comments:

  • The term "system" was used as set of related (but able to independent) parts... and to designate a "Whole bigger than the sum of the parts"... Without a template language, we cannot use a template engine, without standards, the user community cannot use the language. -- User:Krauss 23 Nov 2006.

[edit] Self-Reference 2

There's been a slow edit war over the following, at the top of the article: For the kinds of templates used in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Template messages. One camp says that this violates WP:SELF, the other camp says it doesn't. Several other articles have similar warnings, such as Image, Good faith, and Style manual.

I think we may be confusing the issue here. Rather than a self-reference, isn't this just more of a disambig notice? -- Norvy (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not taking a side on the edit war, but I do think the distinction made by Norvy is correct. Having read WP:SELF this issue of helpful DAB links to WP content seems to be a grey-area. dr.ef.tymac 17:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

---

  1. Could someone point me to the policy page that states: "Assume that experienced Wikipedians are unfamiliar with Wikipedia and that inexperienced Wikipedians are looking for information about advanced editing options"? Also, a brief note on how that squares with the definition of Wikipedia outlined here and here would be useful.
  2. Arguments for the inclusion of the self-reference should be raised on the Village Pump, RfC, or on Wikipedia talk:Avoid self-references, where, I'm sure, their merits will be recognised and enshrined in Wikipedia lore and law. At any rate, the wikitext of an infringing article is not the place to challenge or overthrow Wikipedia guidelines.
  3. Let's try not to spam Wikipedia with internal links to articles about non-notable topics. The Wikipedia:Template messages article wouldn't survive in the main namespace because Wikipedia templates are not a notable subject. They shouldn't be misleadingly/confusingly hidden behind an internal link.
  4. If this is really sowing confusion in the minds of Wikiholics (not that there's anything wrong with that) so close to the trees that they can't see the forest (Wikipedia isn't about Wikipedia), consider the following: What are the odds of finding an Encyclopaedia Britannica article on typography or TeX prefixing the article with "For a discussion of the fonts/typesetting used in Encyclopaedia Britannica, see Appendix 4"?
  5. Image, Good faith, Style manual (and Wikitext) are just as broken as WWW, Wiki, and Firefox would be if they directed innocent bystanders to Wikipedia internals. Were they broken by the same editor?

chocolateboy 18:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As for there being a law unto dab pages (or a grey area), there's nothing in Wikipedia:Disambiguation or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) that suggests Wikipedia guidelines should be suspended for such pages.

chocolateboy 18:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I am not taking a side in this debate (not yet anyway) but the grey area I suggested was based on seeing a lot of such links (that chocolateboy would refer to as 'broken') in the Main article namespace. If these are indeed *all* disfavored, then it'd be nice if WP:SELF were a bit more clear about this issue. I can see why some contributors may indeed think that DAB pages are appropriate exemptions from WP:SELF. Not saying that's a justifiable position, just saying it doesn't surprise me. I do see merit in choc's points however. dr.ef.tymac 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better definition, please

Sorry, if I am not an expert but a slightly pernickety reader (I am consulting the encyclopedia) and I am trying to understand what the writer means by: Template (software engineering), any processing element that can be combined with a data model and processed by a template engine to produce a result document.

As template engine comes out of the blue would it be better to say "...a device called a template engine"... and explain what the expression meant LouisBB (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


The description of Template (word processing) does not agree with the definition of the actual article. According to that it is just a form to be filled in either manually or by a wizzard. LouisBB (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)