Jump to content

Template talk:Main

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

Appearance (or lack thereof) on mobile browsers

[edit]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T91160

I used Chrome on Android earlier to view Sean Penn. The "Filmography" section was shown completely blank. Obviously what I would expect to see is a link to the relevant filmography article - but none was shown. I then checked List of tunnels by location. Exactly the same thing occurs there (for example, the "Australia" section is empty). The same problem occurs on the default Android browser. However, when I look at the 'mobile view' on a PC browser, I do see the expected text and link given by this template.

So, what's going on?

I presume this template is being hidden for certain mobile browsers - but this is bad as it's a template which provides very important links to related pages, and the user is currently given no clue there's actually any content at all. Is there a way to ensure that it is shown on all mobile browsers? Or is this an issue related to a specific set of browsers or platforms? --David Edgar (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
I managed to reproduce your problem and look at the code. I see the Wikipedia Minerva skin clearly defines the following:
.hatnote,#filetoc,.editsection,.mw-editsection
{display:none}

@media all and (min-width:768px)
{.hatnote
{display:block}

}
Translated in plain English, it means that Minerva hides hatnotes when the display width is less that 768px.
Perhaps you should ask Redrose64 or ask Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the reasoning for that - I have never altered the CSS files for mobiles or for skins. But it should be possible to unhide the hatnotes; do mobiles allow a personal CSS page? If so, try 
.hatnote {
 display: block;
}
or if that doesn't work, try 
.hatnote {
 display: block !important;
}
One or the other of these CSS rules should be added to Special:MyPage/common.css. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this at AC power plugs and sockets#British and compatible standards. There's some important information missing there but (presumably) present on the main page - there's a comment to not add further details because it's all on the main page, which I can't see a link to on mobile. Unfortunately your suggested fix doesn't make it reappear - presumably user CSS isn't allowed for mobile devices. Hairy Dude (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I informed Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 134#Template:Main - appearance (or lack thereof) on mobile browsers and MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Template:Main - appearance (or lack thereof) on mobile browsers. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Testing the mobile skin on Firefox 36 (Windows 8.1, 64 bit) I can confirm that shrinking the window width causes the hatnotes to disappear. It's not a device-specific problem. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mobile view does not load any personal CSS; it is completely autonomous from Desktop view. It does load MediaWiki:Mobile.css, which only admins can edit. That said, Mobile hide lots of stuff on small screens. While it makes sense to do so, it does somewhat rely on 'established' project templates, such as hatnote. We can override this; the question is, do we want to? All top-side disambiguation notices have the .hatnote class. They can take up quite some space. But the "See also" notes are generally short. So we could also make a 'sub' class for section hatnotes that are always visible. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the combined result of gerrit:180028 and gerrit:189927 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.hatnote, as used, conflates two quite different kinds of notice:
  • Navigation links, e.g. {{about}}: Suppose I'm an ordinary reader who doesn't know much about Wikipedia and I'm interested in Boston, Lincolnshire, but I don't know to look at that precise title (imagine I don't know it's in Lincolnshire for example). Searching for "Boston" sends me to Boston which is about the city in Massachusetts. At this point I think "How do I get there from here?" If the hatnote is hidden, I'm stuck. In a paper encyclopedia I could leaf around till I found what I was looking for, but that's not a option in non-linear hypertext. Navigation links are our only option; getting rid of them makes using the encyclopedia a unpleasant experience.
  • Cross-references, e.g. {{main}}: I'm reading the article about AC power connectors I mentioned earlier and find the section about UK sockets. If the cross-reference to the UK-specific article is hidden, I think: This treatment is oddly short. Don't any of the amateur hacks who write this know that sometimes the earth pin is disconnected or even plastic? If I see the cross-reference, instead I understand that this is a summary and I shouldn't expect details like that here, for which I should follow the link instead.
I appreciate the design issue when you have limited space, such as on mobile (especially phone) devices, and a lot of fluff has to get cut for space reasons. But other things aren't hidden but rather are presented in a different way, more appropriate to the medium. When it comes to usability, the fact that cross-references are "generally short" seems to me to be a red herring. A cross-reference that happens to be long is no less essential.
In brief, my opinion is that these links should never be completely hidden, as is the case right now, because they're an important usability feature for the encyclopedia. However, navigation aids could be condensed without much issue - in the same way we deal with "problem templates" like {{POV}}. Hairy Dude (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bug report filed and I submitted a patch. I don't see why these things should be hidden. If mobile team wants to create a better interface for them, they are welcome, but the links are there for a reason. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW {{about}}, unlike {{main}}, doesn't have a semantic class. We should really bring back dablink etc for that. As I warned about in the original discussion that ended with it's removal, you shouldn't kill a class with semantic meaning in favor of a class with pure styling information. Mobile might want to be able to distinguish one from the other, and that's needlessly difficult this way. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the hatnote class is retained for styling. It was replaced because targeting both with a "+" selector was not possible without an unreasonable ammount of selector duplication. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I do not know if it is appropiate to use this old section, but this same problem is happening again with the Wikipedia App. It appears that all links to "Main article" are gone. --LoЯd ۞pεth 15:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I find no consensus in this discussion. AlbinoFerret 15:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose a reader prints a 20-page article. It will then be useful if the print includes pointers to "Main articles", "See also" articles and "More information" articles linked to by use of Template:Main and similar. Since hatnotes are not printed, I therefore suggest there be added a "nohatnoteclass" or similar option to make the template use a "rellink" or similar class instead, so that titles of articles with more information are printed. Iceblock (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Iceblock, am I correct in saying that this proposal, if successful, would result in hatnotes being printed? APerson (talk!) 18:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:APerson: Yes, some hatnotes. I was thinking of hatnotes created by {{Main}}, {{Further}}, {{See also}} and similar templates because they provide references to relevant and detailed information that the reader is likely to be interested in. But not {{About}}, {{Other uses}} or {{For}}, as they usually provide references to other topics. And if the reader is interested in those other topics, they can print the disambiguation page. But still, I think that the {{Distinguish}} links also are useful to print. Iceblock (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a reasonably big change; listed at T:CENT. APerson (talk!) 02:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support including some hatnotes in the printed versions of articles. Hatnotes would be just as useful to readers in dead-tree form as they are online. APerson (talk!) 02:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose hatnotes have been very useful to me when selecting what articles to print. However when printing I have already selected said articles, so I don't want or need extra hatnotes. In my view hatnotes would consume a relatively large amount of space without contributing anything to my reading experience. I'd support an option to include hatnotes if users want, but not the automatic inclusion. That said thanks to IceBlock for bringing this up. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial urge is to support. If a section is a mere summary of another article, there should be a pointer. However, such notes producing lots of whitespace is undesirable. A related impression is that there are far too many section hatnotes. Surely, sometimes, these hatnotes should be integrated into the prose, to use an ordinary wikilink. Maybe hatnotes should only be used as an important flag for when reading the section is inappropriate without being aware of an entire other article (a condition that I find rarely to be true). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few observations:
  • Are we sure what is being proposed is technically possible?
  • Agree with SmokeyJoe that hatnotes tend to be overused and in many cases simple wikilinks are sufficient
  • Also agree with LT that if someone is printing an article, they obviously have an internet connection, are viewing the live page, and can click on any hatnotes they see and print those pages as well if they need to, so not sure this would really accomplish anything
  • The low level of particpation here would seem to verify what I thought upon seeing this listed at WP:CENT: not that many people are printing Wikipedia articles on paper, so this may not exactly be an issue of critical importance
In short, while I see no reason to be really opposed to this, I don't see much benefit from it either. I suspect I am not alone in feeling that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - In many cases, printed hatnotes are not going to be that useful since the linked articles may not be printed as part of the same work. I would prefer that we leave them out and use the space for actual article text. Kaldari (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it would be helpful to readers. I know that printed documents do not have usable hyperlinks, but people reading ink-on-paper reference works still take written cues to look at other pages and other sources, the way they have for centuries. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 10:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Small corrections of instructions

[edit]

"which is not useful"

[edit]

Why is it written "This template should also not be used in lead sections. A lead section is always a summary of its own article, not any other; as such, the only appropriate target for a {{main}} link is the article itself, which is not useful."? --Obsuser (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"instead of summarizing its article"

[edit]

Also, "The latter is used when the section expounds a specific aspect of the topic instead of summarizing its article." doesn’t make much sense. It should be rather "The latter is used when the section expounds a specific aspect of the topic instead of summarizing its general meaning." --Obsuser (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template name

[edit]

Template:Main article currently redirects to Template:Main. I suggest that "Template:Main article" would be better as it is more descriptive and clearer. ("Template:Main" would remain as a redirect.) Any objections to this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong objection. Please move this back to "Template:Main" promptly. The proposal is a deep change. It needs way more discussion. It needed opinions and agreement before it was done, not just one feeble assent on one obscure template-talk page after 6 days. (How sorry must I be that I didn't "catch" this proposal?) {Main|Foo} works. People are accustomed to {Main|Foo}. People are so unaccustomed to {Main article|Foo} that Yobot changes {{Main article|Foo}} to {{Main|Foo}} (among other constructive edits). (Probably other editors too.)
If this template was named "Template:Main article" without any move from "Template:Main", I would still be here, proposing a fresh move to "Template:Main" because of its prevalence and acceptance. "Template:Main" is standard because of its prevalence. "Template:Main article" has 217,145 transclusions; "Template:Main" has 215,188 transclusions. If I can trust these numbers, only 1,957 uses of "Template:Main article" (0.9%) are via redirects (probably mostly "Template:Main"; possibly others; I can't get a list right now because the tool is down.)
If, after real discussion, there is a consensus that {Main article|Foo} is the preferred form that should be used (and should have been used) on 215,000 pages, I will be okay with it (and urge Yobot to make changes in the right direction, to reinforce the right example). -A876 (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A876. I have read your post above and am still unclear why you prefer {main} over {main article}. I do not regard this as a "deep" change at all. The former still works just fine (as I'm sure you know) so people who are used to typing that can continue to do so. The main advantage, in my opinion, of the slightly longer form is that the purpose of the template is far clearer when reading the wikicode of an article. Anyway at this stage, unless more people come to the discussion, it is 2-1 in favour so it may not be appropriate to revert this move. Perhaps it is best if you use the WP:RM process? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yobot probably only did so as part of the template redirect replacement program, which has since been fixed to change instances of {{main}} to instances of {{main article}}. --Izno (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the change is only what computer scientists call "syntactic sugar" - the addition of " article" (yeah, with a space before the "a") makes no difference to the meaning, but adds stuff that can optionally be typed in to make the system, er, larger and slower. If I have an objection it is that it opens the door to gnomish editing, studiously replacing {{main|...}} with {{Main article|...}}, to no purpose useful to Wikipedia. I do have a procedural comment, which is that a dialogue between two editors (one guesses that nobody else noticed, template talk being a pretty quiet place on the whole) is not much of a consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request discussion

[edit]

Please rename this template back to "Template:Main". I think it was a major change that was done rashly. I think it was a bad move because it goes against practice. Please make a hasty review whether this can be undone as hastily as it was done. If not, leave it as-is, awaiting a hoped-for [real] discussion as suggested above. (If there is no dissent, I will move this template back myself. I should do it now, on BRD (with a real explanation, not "BRD"). Oh, wait, I can't. How fair is that?) -A876 (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Izno (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I failed to read {{edit template-protected}}: "... and consensus should be obtained before [this] template is added." But I argued that there was no consensus for the original move. Wikipedia:Edit requests#Responding to requests: Is an edit request necessary? (Yes.) Is the request specific? (Yes.) Is the request sensible? (I thought so.) Is the request controversial? (I thought not.) "... Administrators can only [act on] requests which are either uncontroversial improvements ... or are already supported by a consensus of editors, ... ." (I kind of had that, 101:1.)
The move to "Template:Main article" probably should have started as a requested move, in order to prompt the needed discussion beforehand. (Template space is not article space.) Unfortunately the user who proposed the move had permission to just do it, and did it. I propose to undo that move. MSGJ was bold; I want to revert, in order to find the real consensus by way of discussion. WP:BRD "is an optional method of reaching consensus", but I am locked out. It's not a high-risk edit to a "high-risk template", it's a revert of a move. I asked for someone to do the revert for me, but suddenly I need a consensus for that "alteration". Really? Where are my rights? Where do I find a "requested undo" to get that right? (Anyone can edit, unless I have fallen out of that classification.) I'll be putting in "requested move", which invites discussion. (I don't put much hope in my separate comment above, which will be seen by about 5 people in the next year.) -A876 (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On an aside, if you're going to make the request, it requires 1) an administrator and not simply a template editor, as the main template page has a substantial (>1 edit) history, and 2) the appropriate use of a WP:CSD#G6. --Izno (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found out about this. Why was main deemed insufficient? It seemed to me to be an exercise in the bleeding obvious. Keith-264 (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Main" what? It's not that obvious. A descriptive template name is always more helpfull then some cryptic one-word jargon. And sice we still have the redirect, nothing has changed in the use of the template. I have yet to see an argument on why "main" is actually a better name; so far all I see is moaning about process. There is no net gain in moving it back. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Main means main, adding another word on the assumption that a hypothetical reader won't understand is fatuous. Keith-264 (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Main topic? Main article? Main Page? Main category? No, there are too many mains which can be ambiguous. To clarify them is not fatuous ay all. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People can infer what they please so those are questions for you to own, not project onto a hypothetical person. Do you have any evidence that people who use templates can't understand plain English?Keith-264 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant; this isn't about "plain English". This is about Wikipedia jargon, and not everyone is so well versed as you are in the terminology. We want to be open for all, and that makes the current title the better choice. Again, there is nothing to gian from moving it back. So, come up with a valid reason why the old name is better, ohterwise threre is no reason to have this discussion. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what jargon means? It's the technical language of a trade or profession. In this matter, I'm the novice not the adept. Even an amoeba can work out what main means and you have yet to provide evidence that there are editors incapable of knowing what it means. Until you come up with valid evidence that there are people who don't know what main means, your case for the change is not made. Keith-264 (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally (for the reason I gave in the section above) I'd prefer a revert. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I can keep using main I'll put up with the change, if other people's hearts are set on it but amending main to main article seems a waste of time and effort. Keith-264 (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing a number of changes from {{main}} to {{main article}} I came here to see what was up. I would be perfectly fine with a style preference that said {{main article}} should be the preferred usage going forward, but to retro-edit all the existing instances seems like wasteful churn and the existing, working, coding should be considered WP:NOTBROKEN.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 19:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Editing just to change {Main} to {Main article} is unacceptable. Any user or bot who does that should be stopped. I mistakenly changed a few (incidental to real editing), thinking I had missed a sensible standard or a consensus change (best to ingrain correct examples), but then I thought better of it. And then I discovered that this template was recently renamed on a "consensus" of two, quite swiftly, as if someone had casually brought Wikipedia to enlightenment after it groped around in the dark for 15 years. If I happen to notice {Main article} on any page, I will (incidental to real editing) change it to {Main}.

This move has provoked lots of changes from {Main} to {Main article}. Since 7 June 2016, the number of direct uses of {Main article} has gone from 2,000 to 43,0000 (of 222,000). Did those 43,000 changes just happen, or did someone go push for them, possibly to entrench the rename? I think approximately none of these changes were manual; bots must acted on the template rename, in order for this meritless, contested change to propagate so rapidly. Those 43,000 changes are a lot of crap, brought on by the failure to revert this unfounded move ASAP.

I contest the move. On the grounds that it had no real consensus, I demand that it be undone first, pending a real consensus. I demand that it be undone, on MY RIGHT TO EDIT. I demand to apply BRD (bold-revert-DISCUSS) to this move! But this template is protected, the cabal made this move, and the game now is "status quo wins", and objections can't matter. Someone said let's do it; someone said okay; before anyone could blink, it has been done, so now it's set in stone just because not enough people who wander in (remember, no canvassing!) say it should be moved back??? Only the exact opposite is acceptable. This move MUST be reverted. After the legitimate revert is accomplished; after the name is put back to what it was, let's see whether enough people wander in and say that it should be moved as-suggested.

Apathy works both ways. You're now exploiting it to retain an unjustified change. There's no way you should be allowed to move (rename) a template and then refuse to revert saying there's no consensus for "moving" it back. A move-and-move-back calls attention and provokes real discussion (remember BRD?). But the Revert is unfairly blocked, gumming that whole process. That just is not right. To let this Bold move go unReverted is to say that Wikipedia IS NOT Wikipedia.

My reasons for what-the-title-should-ultimately-be hardly matter at all, but: this move was beyond unnecessary. Every article is an article. We don't go naming them "article". {Main}, {Main list}, {Main section}, {Cat main}, {See also}, {Other uses}, etc. all link articles – "article" is implicit, and the default "space". {Main category} links a category. -A876 (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizing "MOS" shortcuts as being in the Wikipedia namespace

[edit]

I just performed this edit because, while the template recognizes the namespace of normal shortcuts that prefix WP: (and so say "Main page:" rather than "Main article:"), the template does not recognize those to MOS sections that use the shortcut "MOS:". I tried piping the link through the full name but that had no affect either. Can someone add a namespace detect for MOS? Thanks --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]

Where is the actual source of {{#invoke:main|main}} ? Hddty. (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hddty.: Do you mean Module:Main? Alex|The|Whovian? 08:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section

[edit]

this template was forked to create template:main section which is now being discussed at TfD here. the primary objection to using this template for sections is that it says "main article" when pointing to a section like this

Main article: Foo § bar

are there any objections to having it say "main section" instead in the case that it's a section link?

Main article: Foo § bar

or, having an option to trigger the more verbose, "the main section for this topic is on the page foo, in the section bar"? Frietjes (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(For context, I started that TfD.) I strongly oppose the "the main section for this topic […]" phrasing; it is verbose when hatnotes should be concise. I weakly oppose the "main section" label. First of all, it's needless: either a linked section is on the same page (making {{main}} inappropriate) or on a different page (making "main article" adequate). Second, it adds needless complexity: we'd need to add a whole segment of code that evaluates each item for a number sign ("#") and filters against manual piping (e.g. "C sharp{{!}}C#", not a section link) and then changes the label accordingly—it's such a small distinction that it's not worth it. Third, even if implemented it'd leave mixed lists (e.g. {{main|PAGE1|PAGE2#SECTION}}) inconsistent—it'd say "main articles" while listing one or more section links. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 22:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Fair enough. I can understand not implementing this due to technical considerations, but this outcome unfortunately doesn't address the fact that I won't use this template for section linking in its current state. My only alternative once {{Main section}} is deleted is custom hatnotes, which I don't like to use. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why we can't do this automatically, but I would think we could have |type=section, which would allow the wording to be changed on a case-by-case basis. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Plastikspork, good idea, sandbox module updated. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably always use this template for section linking if the functionality of the |type= parameter in the current {{Main article/sandbox}} revision is added to {{Main article}}. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited comment: Main section seems unnecessary and somewhat confusing to me. It seems to imply the main section (whatever that means) of the current article not a link to another article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Option to remove Oxford comma

[edit]

When you include more than one entry it provides: Main articles: Article1, Article2, and Article3. Can someone please make an option to remove the oxford comma? This may clash with an article's grammar style. I am not asking for it to be removed as a default, but for say a parameter like |Oxford=no.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Custom labels in Article namespace

[edit]

Hello,

Re: {{Main|Article1|Article2}}

The Custom labels are not working for me:

Main articles: Breadfoo and Winefoo

When I try them in Article namespace. I was trying them on the article Breast to create a Main template pointing to Female brest development and Male breast development, using their root article names. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invocation above works for me with breadfoo and winefoo. --Izno (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 February 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the template at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Main → Template:Main article – Lot of discussion above, let's see what an RM produces - do not condone changing instances already there, but it's clearer to have the title of the template be {{Main article}}. Know what is the main of, and matches the text of the template. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that churn was from listing in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template_redirects - can specify to not to and that shouldn't happen. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That churn only happens alongside other unrelated edits specific to whatever actions are being done. No reason not to include it if the name change goes through. Anyway, said "churn" is an improvement to the quality of life of other editors, especially the more novice ones. -- Netoholic @ 06:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't realize that it switches to "main page" when the first page is not in article space..should add that to the doc I reckon Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Category namespace

[edit]

Despite the instruction in this template's documentation to use {{Cat main}} in the Category namespace, {{Main}} is transcluded on 8,000+ categories. To address this issue going forward, I am proposing two changes:

  1. A new WP:AWB genfix to replace {{Main}} with {{Cat main}} in the Category namespace—see phab:T201277.
  2. A visible error message when {{Main}} is used in Category namespace; if possible, a hard stop to saving the edit would be ideal, but I am not sure if this is technically feasible.

Any thoughts or concerns? -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "if possible" is possible using the WP:Edit filter, but we wouldn't usually do something like that in this case. --Izno (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: Thank you, I hadn't thought of that... -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that categories need their own special hatnote wording? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: A very good question, and at the moment I don't have a satisfactory answer so I have requested input at Template talk:Cat main and Wikipedia talk:Categorization (the guideline codifies the use of {{Cat main}} in the Category namespace). I thought it was because {{Main}} does not work in the Category namespace, but {{Main}} generates virtually the same text in Category namespaces with just four differences:
  1. {{Cat main}} supports the "article=no" parameter, which changes "The main article for this category is..." to "The main page for this category is...", whereas {{Main}} does not.
  2. {{Cat main}} links to Help:Categories (a reader-oriented information page) whereas {{Main}} links to Wikipedia:Categorization (an editor-oriented guideline).
  3. {{Cat main}} bolds the article/page title(s) whereas {{Main}} does not.
  4. {{Cat main}} includes a period at the end of the sentence whereas {{Main}} does not.
I assume it would be fairly straightforward to incorporate all of these elements into {{Main}}, so again I am not sure why a separate template is required. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better to wait for both my module tfds to complete before doing anything with the templates. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure. I am not proposing that we make any changes right now, just exploring the technical need (or lack thereof) for separate templates. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is something of a semantic difference between these two. One of them may be used in multiple articles to point to the main article of the topic ({{main}}). {{cat main}} on the other hand is used to point only to the article which corresponds directly to the category and is typically unique as a result. --Izno (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but both templates have the option to specify just one article or multiple articles, so that's purely a result of how the templates are being used and not a technical difference between them. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Falcon, Izno, and Pppery: I've been looking at things to do in the realm of hatnote templates, and the {{main}}/{{Cat main}} discrepancy has been bothering me for, well, years. I'd like to continue this. To restart this discussion, I've written some code in the module sandbox that just separates the category-namespace-related code to its own function, and has the function invoked in the template choose between them based on namespace. Unless I've made a mistake somewhere, it should be compatible for dropping into the live module without breaking anything—not that I'm suggesting that; it's intended primarily to be illustrative! I currently think that it's probably slightly better to have separate templates; I agree with Izno that they're at least somewhat semantically distinct … but there's still significant overlap, and I think we need to question whether their purpose is identical. If their purpose is identical, they probably ought to be a single template with a single wording. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 22:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question here has nothing to do with internal implementation. It is: Why do categories use the sentence-style "the main article/page(s) for this category is/are ..." while non-categories use the labelled "Main article/page(s): ..." and should that change? Trying to use the same template for two styles as discussed above (and as currently coded) is a bad idea: you end up with an if statement that separates two non-interacting and tangentally-related functions, which just screams "Split!" to me. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's an obvious implication of the example I coded. The value of writing the code as I did was to isolate the two branches of the code from one another without changing the result significantly. I think my opinion is that {{main}} ought to be the only template used, and to always use its simple "labelled" style and omit needless words. That would make its code a lightweight wrapper on Module:Labelled list hatnote, as I imagine we'll still want the automatic "Main page" alternative label. Still, I'm open to other perspectives here and want to at least be sure before I make edits affecting >300k pages. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 04:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any actual proposal to make categories use the labelled style would probably require a TfD on Template:Cat main, although I would support it. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery started a TFD on Template:Cat main. --Izno (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No idea where to say this, but anyone who just changed main/seealso/further to just normal text completely destroyed the purpose of these templates

[edit]

Absolute bs to be reverted asap. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also some wonderman just changed character infoboxes into shit. Wtf is going on? SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SNAAAAKE!!, Some wonkiness is occuring with PHP7. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template not working in mobile version

[edit]

This template is currently not working in the mobile version (at least in the app), which is kind of disruptive since several lists and articles on major topics include a link to a main article only in some sections, with no text at all (this happens with several lists of fictional characters or the links to discographies and videographies in music artists' articles, for example). --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

phab:T240721. --Izno (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same problem (using Android). Disambiguation and "main article" links are not visible in the app on English Wikipedia, though they are visible on Swedish Wikipedia (using the app), and on the mobile website (in either language). Jacob Lundberg (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Centered

[edit]

Suggest include a align= option, that can be selected to center (i.e. another template under it shows a message in the center of the page).

Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2020

[edit]

Please change (lines 54 to 58)

if (curNs == 14) or (curNs == 15) then --category/talk namespaces
mainForm = isPlural and
'The main %ss for this category are %s'
or
'The main %s for this category is %s'
to
if (curNs == 14) or (curNs == 15) then --category/talk namespaces
mainForm = isPlural and
'The main %ss for this category are %s.'
or
'The main %s for this category is %s.'

and, alter the hidden comment fragment at line 6 from
-- main article for this category is xxx". Otherwise, it produces
to
-- main article for this category is xxx." Otherwise, it produces

because sentences need full stops. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Affected category/talk pages may have to be purged or null-edited to reflect the change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comma bug

[edit]

I noticed a bug in this template: when there are two main articles, and the first one has a section link, it inappropriately includes a comma. Example:

Main articles: Article1 § Section, and Article2

Could this be fixed? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is originating in Module:Hatnote list. As you can see, see also is also affected:
See also: Article1 § Section, and Article2
--Izno (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a bug, but an intentional design decision; there is explicit logic for this: 
	-- Set the conjunction, apply Oxford comma, and force a comma if #1 has "§"
	local conjunction = s .. options.conjunction .. s
	if #list == 2 and searchDisp(list[1], "§") or #list > 2 then
		conjunction = separator .. conjunction
	end
The comma makes it clear (or attempts to) that for section links, the second item is a separate article and not a section in the first article. That is, it makes it clear your example is "Article1 § Section, and Article2" not "Article1 § Section and Section2" as it might be interpreted otherwise. — The Earwig (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I happened upon {{main}} in the section Bogotá#Ethnic Groups which links to Race and ethnicity in Bogotá, presently an aliased redlink (alias is Human biological diversity and ethnicity in Bogotá). I checked that there is not some deleted article which used to be there.

I expected there would be a usage note or similar on the template which said "The linked article must exist", otherwise how could the section be a summation or excerpt of it? —EncMstr (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally not reasonable to link to a non-existent article. --Izno (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of previous unitalicized typeface

[edit]

The present italic "main" stylization is meaningless because it doesn't properly denote the "page". Most italic, in Wikipedia implements within article in literature, books, plays, films, pieces, singles... Meanwhile, italicization is meaningless if we implement in all project pages. It is better to restore the previous unitalicized one. The Supermind (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Supermind: What previous style? The template has always had italicization so far as I know; the italics are just part of the style we use to visually indicate the "note" in "hatnote". You're advocating for a change that would affect all hatnotes and require a handful of code changes, e.g. in Module:Hatnote list. I'm not strongly against the idea of such a change, but it'd require a much more general consensus than just for {{main}}, to maintain consistency among hatnote templates. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extricating category functionality

[edit]

This template, {{main}}, includes functionality redundant to {{cat main}}, which provides functionality for the main page related to some category. We could simplify {{main}} by removing the category functionality and always using only {{cat main}} in category-space; notably, this would let us use the simple Module:Labelled list hatnote instead of Module:Main.

If no one objects within a week or so, then I'll take these steps, over a few days:

  1. Fire up AWB and replace all category-space uses of {{main}} with equivalent uses of {{cat main}}; there are few enough uses in category-space to do it semi-manually
  2. Replace use of Module:Main in {{main}} with Module:Labelled list hatnote
  3. Delete Module:Main as G6 once it's unused

I'm purposely not going through the TfD process here because that looks confusing, as if we intend to delete a major template rather than "renovate" it, which, as far as I can tell, was the only reason the previous TfD failed for the module.

Pinging in these users, who have all previously commented on the TfD or here on this topic: @Pppery, Andy Dingley, Matthiaspaul, and Black Falcon:

Thanks for your interest in this cleanup. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 16:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support this action. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable. – Anon423 (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What prevents future use of {{main}} in category space? Before the category functionality was added to this template, it was already being used 8000+ times on category pages (per the #Category namespace section above). Is it worth adding namespace detection, either in the wikicode of {{main}} or in Module:Labelled list hatnote, or setting up a bot to detect and correct future misuse? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this plan, nothing, for two reasons.

First, use of {{main}} in category space isn't necessarily misuse—rather, the problem we're avoiding is a template doing something it isn't supposed to do or not doing something it is supposed to do. This discussion establishes that it's simpler to have each template not overlap, so that {{main}} doesn't have to do double-duty with different behaviours across namespaces. In turn, an endorsement of this proposal would establish a consensus that {{main}} should not have the category behaviour, and the simplest way to maintain pages without leaving the behaviour in {{main}} is to replace instances in category-space with {{cat main}}.

Second, extra code defeats much of the purpose of making this simplification, so we should seek evidence of how much "misuse" is likely before we establish measures to correct it. If it's at most a couple of uses over a month, some manual correction can handle it. If we get, say, ten instances, perhaps introducing an error message is worthwhile. As such, my thought would be to wait and see before adding such functionality. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 19:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those issues were discussed ad nauseum both in the #Category_namespace section above and at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 29#Template:Cat_main, where there was consensus that the uses of {{main}} in category space was incorrect, and that "fixing" them was uncontroversial. Those threads are also, incidentally, where the idea for consolidating category functions into {{main}} was hatched in the first place. If you look at the latter discussion, you will see that BrownHairedGirl cleaned up all the cases of {{main}} in category space on January 1, 2019, and by January 4 there were already 5 new cases. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK; I hadn't read through all the old discussions. As Special:Search/category:_hastemplate:main shows 1,623 results, we're looking at an average rate of around 1.6 new instances per day over the 1,007 days since January 1, 2019. That suggests an error message is appropriate. You know what … I'll just go ahead and make these changes, including an error message. This is an obvious change and I shouldn't waste everyone's time worrying about forming a perfect consensus. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 22:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The real solution is to merge both templates as they are almost identical, with the only difference being that 1) the link is bolded and 2) the option to change from "article" to "page". A very simple merge can do that. So regarding the original question, I oppose any AWB or mass replacement as a pointless and unhelpful solution. Gonnym (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
​Um, you're too late. I did the mass replacement of {{main}} with {{cat main}} in category-space last night, and I just saw your message after having changed Module:Main to produce an error on categories. Moreover, you're out of date on the "article" vs. "page" distinction as an update I made to Module:Cat main means that both can automatically detect the namespace of their target pages and adjust phrasing accordingly. Further, I disagree that they should be merged, because they are semantically opposite: {{main}} is making a link that is more specific than the current article, while {{cat main}} is making a link that is general for the current category. The new status quo is that they are separate hatnotes with disjoint scopes, and therefore inappropriate to merge. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "new status quo". Start a real discussion and actually wait more than 1 day for other editors to join before forcing your opinions. Gonnym (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, that's a fairly standard bold, revert, discuss; I've done bold (I went ahead with a change early, supported to some degree by a partial consensus), you've done revert, let's discuss. Do you have a substantive reason that we ought to merge these templates, besides their superficial similarity? Would you please address my point of the templates being semantically opposite? Why should merging be preferred over the removal of overlap that I was performing? {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 21:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: It's now been five days since your objection and one week since I started this discussion. Please either explain your position or stop holding up a fix that otherwise has unanimous consensus to date. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 16:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've pretty much explained already in my opposition. You are changing something that works fine for no reason or value. Explain how 2 modules are better than 1? Explain what advantages splitting the code has. Since we are dealing with code and not article content, this isn't a "I LIKE IT" situation or really a head count and comments should be on the code. I don't see any unanimous consensus or even a single discussion here on the merits of the code. @Pppery, as one that nominated this once or twice, do you have anything to add to this? Gonnym (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The templates should either be fully merged (that is, rely solely on namespace detection and redirect {{cat main}} to {{main}}), or fully split (what Nihiltres is doing). I guess I weakly prefer splitting to merging, on the grounds that the two templates really don't have anything in common in the implementation. Note that, in Nihiltres' eventual end goal, there aren't 2 modules, because Module:Main gets deleted (given the level of drama here, I would strongly recommend not G6-ing it and instead properly listing it at TfD) and {{main}} uses Module:Labelled list hatnote instead. In fact, what (re)started this whole discussion was MJL wondering why {{main}} needed to use its own module at Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)#Hatnote modules.

For what it's worth, I still support the much broader restructure I proposed in 2018, in which hatnote templates don't, as a general rule, have their own module, but I recognized that that idea doesn't have consensus and stopped pushing for it. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Module:Main gets completely deleted and we don't have 2 modules (which isn't what the /sandbox version is), then I guess the split is slightly-not-as-worse. @Nihiltres is the plan to TfD the Main module? If so, feel free to continue with your changes then. Gonnym (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym:The starting problem was that {{main}} was awkward and did double-duty across two namespaces, with the double-duty being redundant to {{cat main}}. As Pppery said, they could either be merged or split; I'm working on "split" because I see the two cases as semantically different. The plan would eventually move to {{main}} using Module:Labelled list hatnote instead of Module:Main, so the answer to your question is "yes". Before that can happen, though, Module:Labelled list hatnote will need some minor enhancement to be able to match Module:Main's functionality of using "pages" instead of "articles" if targets are outside the article namespace, but that should be reasonably straightforward to add. In the meantime, my (reverted) edit removed the category-space functionality and introduced an error when used in category-space, to help those still using {{main}} to learn to switch.

The status quo is that there are three modules: a generalist Module:Labelled list hatnote, Module:Main for {{main}}, and Module:Cat main for {{cat main}}. My goal results in going to two, moving {{main}} to use Module:Labelled list hatnote, with no prejudice towards what happens to Module:Cat main except that there shouldn't be any awkward overlap.

I agree with Pppery that if there's any dispute remaining over the status of Module:Main we'll go and do a proper TfD. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 21:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 25 October 2022

[edit]

Many Wikipedia editors wrongfully assume that they need to keep the underscores in section links. I suggest that the respective example in this documentation should use a section title with spaces; currently it has a single word only:

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 10:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding footnotes

[edit]

Is there any option to exclude footnotes? Currently, List of Indigenous peoples uses this template which includes the first paragraph of Indigenous peoples, which uses an {{efn}}. The problem is, the former article uses {{NoteTag}}s and so does not include the respective {{notelist}} template required for {{efn}}. And as such, there's a citation error in it. It would be nice if footnotes could be removed in this template. Does that currently exist? And if not, is there anything that can be done to address this issue? Satricious (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list page has been updated now. The revision with error can be found here. Satricious (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Related: {{Excerpt}} supports explicitly defining templates that can/cannot be transcluded (e.g. you could do |templates=-efn and no such templates would show up). Would be helpful if this existed for this template too. Satricious (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usage question

[edit]

I recently attempted to add {{Main|Operation Entebbe}} to Israel–Uganda relations § Entebbe hijacking. This seemed like fairly standard usage to me, but Glenford Burrell and then Gilabrand reverted me, asserting that the link was redundant.

I'd like some clarification, which we could potentially add to the documentation, about consensus on whether or not this template should be used in situations like this. My view is that it should be, since it improves scanability — i.e. if a reader is skimming through the article, as most readers do, it'll be easier for them to notice that a section has its own article if this is present than if they have to start reading the section. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping thread. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dual number

[edit]

Hello. I would like to use different text with this template in Slovene Wikipedia for 1 item (glavni članek), for 2 items (glavna članka), and for 3 or more items (glavni članki). The template is located at sl:Predloga:Glavni članek (please see the source). Could you please advise me on how to tweak the relevant module? Thank you. --TadejM my talk 00:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding interwikis

[edit]

The problem here is that, there should be a way to exclude interwikis that are not Wikipedia article. Example:

Main article: mw:Wikimedia Apps/Android FAQ


Here, the hatnote says that it is an article, while the page on mediawiki.org isn't. I am wondering which template or module does the magic works, and to fix it? Toadette (Happy holiday!) 19:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists § Should Template:Dynamic list be used in sections that also have Template:Main?

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists § Should Template:Dynamic list be used in sections that also have Template:Main?. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 15 February 2024

[edit]

Description of suggested change: Delete Broader may be appropriate in this case. from the lead section, as the template Broader is also meant be used in sections 83.168.137.1 (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 15:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in sections that have a main article template

[edit]

This feels like a silly question but having a {{Main|xxx}} template in a section of an article does not obviate the need for citations in that section, correct?

For example, in the War on terror page, the "11 September attacks" section still needs citations even though most all of the claims likely have citations in the "September 11 attacks" page.

It's just that I feel I see it all too commonly that certain sections w/ the main template just have zero citations. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UI improvement requested (30 September 2024)

[edit]

Description of suggested change: Hi everyone, I would like to concentrate on the UI (the User Interface) of this template: having a simple text in italic, put in place that is not highlighted in any way (not with borders, nor with a different background color), just makes it a little bit difficult to clearly distinguish it from the rest of the text. Coming from the Italian Wikipedia, I really suggest that we take as an example of improvement exactly the Italian version of this template (it:Template:Vedi anche), that has a great mix of visive features:

  • article's link bold and italic
  • Border of 2-3px to highlight the box
  • a search icon, to complete

This is my proposal... it is really annoying every time to have difficulties in finding wherever there is a Main box or not.

Thank you all for you attention.

LucaLindholm (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Deactivating the edit request since this is just a proposal. Feel free to change it to |answered=no once consensus is reached. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht, ah ok, didn't know I had to do something else before (this is my first time asking for an improvement here on enwiki... on itwiki it is more familiar and direct), sorry. Where should I go to research for consensus? :) LucaLindholm (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LucaLindholm Here is fine, just wait for consensus before opening an edit request. I have posted a link to this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote, since the {{main}} template uses the standard hatnote style. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LucaLindholm: Changing just the {{main}} template isn't an option, since all the hatnotes should use the same style (which they do in both the English and the Italian Wikipedias--it's just two different styles). Changing the style for all hatnotes is theoretically possible, but I suspect that English Wikipedia users are happy with it the way it is. If you do want to take this route, it should probably be done as an RfC. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Main&oldid=1253906251"