| This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Community Portal discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links. |
Templates documentation and noinclude
I would like to bring up the question on how to handle the Template documentation, and how we should use the <noinclude> tags. See here the discussion that fired this off. I feel that we should devise a consensus on how we wish the Template pages, Infobox Templates in special, to appear when visiting them.
What usually happens now is that part of the code of the template (e.g. Template:Artifact Summary) falls through the various if-statements. It does given an example how the template will appear when called, but I feel the example is insufficient. That's why I introduced the Appearance example at the bottom of the documentation, though Nephele pointed out that this example doesn't show where the various parameters go. Now I believe that the documentation page can be modified so it does show you, and in better detail (as it is now, it only shows a few parameters). My point is that I would like to see that the template code itself doesn't appear on its own page. Instead, there would be one documentation page that covers everything the editor needs to know.
That brings me to the use of <noinclude> tags. They prevent the editor from previewing when editing the template, by using the very helpful #preview tags. But on the other hand, those tags are removed when the edits are finished, to avoid uneccessary processing for every page that loads the template.
I think that an editor that knows how to work the #preview tags, probably knows of the effects of <noinclude>. The editor will know that while previewing, he/she should temporarily disable the tags. It's maybe a bit too hopeful on my end, so if someone has a nice road between let's hear it. --Timenn < talk > 17:42, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
- I basically agree with Timenn, but I can see that Nephele has a point too. I'd prefer to keep the pages looking clean, but if people find it useful to have parameters like PAGENAME showing, then we may as well leave it.
- I think we're going to have to see how things pan out with the new functionality before making a final decision. I'm more disappointed to see that we have to remove preview tags when going live - I'd have thought they'd be useful to keep in - and then there are issues with noinclude/includeonly tags. I think it's only going to affect the infoboxes and we don't have too many of those. As long as we can keep the one-liners clean that should be the main thing. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 13:47, 15 June 2009 (EDT)