Template talk:Asbox/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sorting of the stub templates themselves within their own stub categories

Could be

1. by tempsort parametr
2. standard * or space
3. Regardless of tempsort

Thoughts are to sort all by space. Rich Farmbrough, 18:29 26 September 2007 (GMT).

Metastub and Metapicstub

Yes I am aware of {{Metastub}} and {{Metapicstub}}. Rich Farmbrough, 08:23 27 September 2007 (GMT).

Other features possibilities please add to list

Template possibilities

1. a note field (to be trancluded to articles) <-- definitely needed
2. sfd parameter
3. date parameter
4. categorise template in a template category - or include "whatlinkshere" target. <-- definitely useful to help find new stubs - second option probably preferred by WSS
5. Support more than one categories explicitly.

   Second cat added. Rich Farmbrough, 13:20 27 September 2007 (GMT).

6. Remove conditional on template topsort per WP:WSS

   Rich Farmbrough, 11:40 28 September 2007 (GMT).

7. Add the ability to apply a border to the image (will generally be used for flags)

Retrofit

1. Standard header and/or footer on stub templates (not to be transcluded).

Maker template

1. subst: to create an Asbox call, plus any appropriate clichés.
2. includes Category:New stub template to help discover new stub templates.

Rich Farmbrough, 08:23 27 September 2007 (GMT).

Purpose

Copied (not verbatim) from User talk:Grutness

The purpose is to resolve a number of issues with existing stub templates, by

1. allowing modifications across the family of templates
2. allowing standard approaches in particular:
   1. making all templates part of their own class with a sort order of " ".
   2. allowing all templates to support a common sort-order syntax
   3. putting all templates in a category of stub templates if required
   4. allowing simple tests to identify/overrule image size
   5. getting stub boxen to line up better
3. avoid or reduce new stub templates being code which are broken.

I can very simply retrofit this to at least 95% of existing stub templates, and with a small amount of work to the rest.

Incidentally my idea would be to leave details of style and semantics in the hands of those that are expert in stubs.

Rich Farmbrough, 07:36 27 September 2007 (GMT).

Additional benefits

• Also will make discovery of new stub types easier.
• Will make discovery of substituted template boxen easier (any occurrence of the text "Asbox" in main space).
• At the same time as the retrofit, can make any other consistent changes to stub templates. (E.G add link to WP:WSS, advice nto to subst, etc. at top.
  • These changes might be better within the template anyway, in the unlikely event they are desired.
• Consistency will allow for future changes and simpler scanning for problems/features of boxen.

Rich Farmbrough, 08:36 27 September 2007 (GMT).

Status

• Tested in userspace
• Tested on half a baker's dozen score of stub templates.
• Floated at WP:WSS
• Piloted on couple of hundred stub templates.

Rich Farmbrough, 09:47 27 September 2007 (GMT).

To do

• Await more comments/changes  Done
• Implement round 1 of changes
  1. note field  Done
  2. remove conditional topsort  Done
  3. change default image size?  Done (Alai)
• User space/sandbox test.  Done
• Move to pilot  Done
• Involve more ppl?
• See if any more changes forthcoming
• Y. rinse and repeat
• N. start implementation.

Rich Farmbrough, 11:47 28 September 2007 (GMT).

Message

Please add {{pp-template}}. — redmond barry 02:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

{{pp-template}} is already in an includeonly tag on the (unprotected) /doc subpage as of me checking this request. It appears on the template page as needed. Nihiltres^(t.l) 03:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Request

I think this should have the "expanding it" plain linked.   jj137 ♠ Talk 23:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Me too,

<span class="plainlinks">[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it]</span>

should work. — str4nd ☕ 15:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

Hello, Although I want to add an interwiki link into Template:Writingsystem-stub, it uses Template:Asbox. In this case, may I add a code as <noinclude>[[ja:Template:Grammatology-stub]]</noinclude>? Thanks. --Nightshadow28 (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

whatlinkshere

I just don't see what the Template:Asbox/whatlinkshere dummy page does that http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?target=Template%3AAsbox&offset=&limit=5000&title=Special%3AWhatlinkshere&namespace=10 doesn't do, without requiring either a dummy page or the code to link to it. Since stub templates are generally not placed in other templates, there is no need to worry about separating out retransclusion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Use

Is this template a standard of use for stub templates? I only saw it for the first time today. Are there plans on making it's use on all stub-templates like the other {{ambox}}, {{mbox}}, etc. templates are used for message boxes? —Borgarde^talk 05:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the creation of a new, simpler stub template here -- Blooper (Talk) 13:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Date parameter

Why? Stub templates are not dated. Should not be dated. Have a model coding that is covered by a long-standing set of guidelines, that is absent any concept of dating. This is the sort of "mission creep" that makes me nervous about the introduction of this sort of essentially-pointless, single-point-of-failure, resource-hog, job-queue-clogging, category-update-slowing metatemplate. This was introduced on a "pilot" basis, and seems to have achieved absolutely no consensus whatsoever. Time to cut our losses and TFD? Alai (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Category suppression

Resolved

I have fiddled with this, but cannot suppress the category. Leaving the parameter blank simply creates a blank category. This template needs a category suppression method so that is can be listed without placing the page in the category. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind: I peeked at the code and noticed that it does namespace detection and includes the category only in articles. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Third category

{{editprotect}}

This template needs an option for a third category, which I have provided the code for in the sandbox. Borgarde (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Martin^msgj 13:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Image borders

{{editprotected}} Could someone please check for the presence of an argument named border and, if present (and not equalling no), add a border to the image? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you confirm that the version in the sandbox does what you want? There are some examples in testcases to compare. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

External link icon on internal link

{{Editprotected}} Can an administrator remove the external link icon from the internal link? This can be done by changing "[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it]" to "<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it]</span>". -- IRP ☎ 22:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I think that the different type of link makes it easier to see that clicking it does something different than clicking on other Wikilinks. For new users this may help distinguish the link from just being to another article on how to expand articles as opposed to actually expanding the one they are looking at. I'd like to see more discussion before having this edit made. --CapitalR (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have posted an edit request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Request (please tell me if I posted in the incorrect place). Personally, I cannot understand why you disagree with my request. If the link title is "expanding it", then it is not possible for it to be confused with an article (especially due to the context that it is in). The icon is designed to indicate "external link", not a certain type of internal link. Even if you don't agree, do you understand my point? Do you think I'm missing something? -- IRP ☎ 02:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I don't agree that it is what all editors might think when seeing the link. If I saw the "expanding it" as an internal link, I would think it would point to something like this: expanding it as opposed to actually editing the article. Even though the edit page is an internal link, I don't think that that necessarily implies it should appear like a normal page link. I see some utility to the different link style (especially for users new to Wikipedia editing), and I think that utility may be why it has been like this for many years. That said, it's just my personal opinion and I will gladly go ahead and make the change if consensus agrees with you. --CapitalR (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this correctly, I don't think it would be an improvement. For instance, in {{Agri-stub}} the little icon after 'expanding it' would go away. In that situation, this icon signals to the reader that they are taking some action, not just viewing another normal wiki page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that you are understanding this correctly. The icon indicates "external link" not "action". What indicates "action" is that the link title is "expanding it". Expanding it is an action. It cannot possibly be confused with a page. -- IRP ☎ 20:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think removing the arrow is the correct approach. We have a very clear semantic distinction between the three types of links. A bluelink is an "internal link" in the proper sense of the word, a link to a page that the user may wish to read. The other link colour is for 'out of the ordinary' links that are still on-wiki: these may be interwikis, interlanguage links, or links to nonstandard pages like the edit screen. The addition of the arrow has the clear semantic distinction of "this link goes off wikimedia", a true "external link". As such, the correct appearance for the edit link here to convey the correct semantic connotations is the pale blue colour without the arrow. Happy‑melon 20:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are trying to remove the external link icon, the correct way to do so is insert "<span class="plainlinks">" (without quotes) before the link and "</span>" (without quotes) after the link. -- IRP ☎ 21:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Or just add that class to the table itself. This is what is proposed, no? Happy‑melon 21:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen a proposal like that, but yes, that's another way to do it. -- IRP ☎ 21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this should be done. To be perfectly clear, this would be the proposed edit. —Ms2ger (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} Administrator, see the discussion above. -- IRP ☎ 17:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

All done. --CapitalR (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Image borders (2nd try)

{{editprotected}}

Could someone update the template with the sandbox version? It adds the "border" parameter (which defaults to off), everything else is the same. Testcases page renders as expected. GregorB (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Any link to discussion that this is needed/desirable? Consensus? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's none - other than no opposition, I guess (see two sections above). The feature is both useful (since it tries to emulate what current stubs do) and non-disruptive (it does not change the behavior of existing transclusions). Nevertheless, for the time being, I'll comment out the editprotected request to allow time for possible objections. GregorB (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be happy to add the code if there are no concerns or alternative suggestions in a couple of days time. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You can also use icon= instead of image=, which allows for custom image markup. — Edokter • Talk • 12:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

True, although not really obvious... I needed the border so that I can use a flag, but now I see that flags can be wrapped into {{flagicon}} (or {{border}}, if need be - duh!). So I guess border param is not needed after all... GregorB (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, for flags? I had a quick look before and I couldn't find a stub that was using a border.
Hmm, looking at {{US-stub}} and {{Germany-stub}} they aren't using a border either. Which ones are there? And should they be using a border in the first place? :)
Amalthea 14:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think pages with borders should just use "icon"... There's not too many, FWIW. –xeno^talk 15:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Still ... if {{Chile-sport-bio-stub}}, {{Chile-struct-stub}}, {{Chile-scientist-stub}}, {{Chile-botanist-stub}}, and {{Chile-writer-stub}} can do without border, I'd think {{Chile-bio-stub}} can as well. Dito {{Maryland-newspaper-stub}} et al vs. {{Maryland-school-stub}}.
We (=you) can of course fix them all, but as long as we're that inconsistent I don't think it would be a problem to drop all borders. Amalthea 16:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree... One can barely discern the border... And, well, these flags don't HAVE small 1-pixel borders around them in the first place, so it's kindof strange of us to add one. –xeno^talk 17:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Any objections to me eliminating the borders? –xeno^talk 21:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

boilerplate

This template has the class boilerplate. I don't think we have any such class anymore on en.wp. As far as I can gather, it stems from when all the boilerplate (copy and paste) messages, were turned into templates a long time ago. I doubt it's usefulness, and think we should remove it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

numbered params

What is the use for the numbered paramaters that are discussed on the documentation page ? I seems to be more confusing than useful ... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that they are intended to offer easier extensibility of the asbox meta stub template which could immediately be used in articles, without having to change any of the actual stub templates.
It's a neat idea, but I'd tend to remove it, too. First, I really don't expect that we ever want to offer parametrized stub templates where that pass-through would make sense. Second, even if we do, it would probably be easy to AWB through all stub templates then. Amalthea 15:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed from documentation —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Stub templates: the future

Sorry to ask this, but before doing all this work, would it be possible to take a step back and be sure that it's worth it. What is the purpose of these stub templates? Are they still necessary and do we need that extra bit of encouragement to get people editing stubs rather than other types of articles. Would it worthwhile consulting more generally about whether they are still wanted? I suppose there are kilobyes of discussion about this somewhere, so feel free to point me towards it :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It might make more sense to get rid of a lot of the stub templates... I think that having them marked is good, but the uber-subcategorization seems excessive to me. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This should probably be discussed on the Village Pump (proposals), and/or at WikiProject Stub Sorting. But I think that stubs in their current form will live on for quite some time, although perhaps reduced a tad. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree— templates are aids to technical issues, but should not attempt to set guidelines or policies. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Category proposal

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Message box categories. Thanks. Dragons flight (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We should remove the nbsp's from stub templates

Because whatever good they're supposed to do, they don't even show up in the right place, see red outlines in screen-shot:

http://i40.tinypic.com/sljibd.jpg

I corrected the first one, but the second one uses this protected sub-template. — CharlotteWebb 14:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. I guess it was to put a small space between the image and the text. Is there a better way to do this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I wondered whether the icons are actually a good thing. Presumably anyone who is able to add to a - for example - chemotherapy stub, knows what chemotherapy is without having a a picture to illustrate it - and knows that the stub is about chemotherapy. When I created {{Asbox}} my focus was on making sure it could handle the varieties of stub-templates that existed at that time - I didn't want people saying "it doesn't support this slightly oversized image, therefore it is useless" and the like. However the main value of stub templates is the categorization, I feel, allowing specialists to see where their help can be best used. Rich Farmbrough, 17:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC).

Hooray!

I gave up trying to get this template accepted back in.. whenever it was. I am pleased that an apparently obvious idea now seems to have some champions. And that it has been improved and brought up to date. Well done to all concerned. Rich Farmbrough, 17:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC).

Category Sorting

{{editprotected}} Could the copy in the sandbox be copied over to live. The change is to allow for better sorting within the categories for the templates. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the current behavior? Does it end up sorting by article id or something like that? --- RockMFR 03:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's so that the templates at the start of the stub categories are sorted alphabetically rather than in some sort of random order. See Category:European actor stubs for an example. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 13:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OK the way this was supposed to work was that the templates themselves were only included in in their categories if the appropriate tempsort was defined. I believe the reason was that I was implementing Asbox without changing anything in the stub templates behaviour, and different stubs templates at that time worked in different ways. I also believe I used AWB to convert about 20% of the stub templates and had some method for inserting the correct values into the tempsort keys. This is probably no longer relevant, but the documentation needs to catch up. Rich Farmbrough, 00:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

Yes, it looks like the docs don't match what the template is doing. I've also converted a few templates over to use asbox but didn't use the tempsort parameter. -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe stub sorters almost always wants the templates included in their respective categories. I saw an edit summary to this effect, anyway. –xeno^talk 13:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text

User Xenobot its providing all the stub template icons with alt text. Can a default be simply inserted into {{Asbox}} ? Rich Farmbrough, 13:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

This is already done [1]. Xenobot is just converting to asbox rather than hard-coding the alt-text. –xeno^talk 13:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, just checking the code, before dropping you a note and I see that you have done it! Then you have replied to me here before I can! You are fast today. Incidentally it's a shame you had to re-invent the reg-exen to convert to asbox, it was all running sweet as a nut, but that was some time and several hard discs ago. Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

eh, don't sweat it. It was a useful learning exercise for me. I ran into a few issues where people would place code up in the middle of the standard business, which would get lost in the conversion, but I think I've all-but-fixed this issue. –xeno^talk 14:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Slight breakage

In the doc page the example stub templates are showing empty categories with sort order. This is probably due to the changes above. Rich Farmbrough, 18:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC).