Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 21:13, 16 May 2024

Table of contents
First discussion
End of page
New post

Shortcuts

The proposals section of the village pump is used to offer specific changes for discussion. Before submitting:

Check to see whether your proposal is already described at Perennial proposals. You may also wish to search the FAQ.
This page is for concrete, actionable proposals. Consider developing earlier-stage proposals at Village pump (idea lab).
Proposed policy changes belong at Village pump (policy).
Proposed speedy deletion criteria belong at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.
Proposed WikiProjects or task forces may be submitted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals.
Proposed new wikis belong at meta:Proposals for new projects.
Proposed new articles belong at Wikipedia:Requested articles.
Discussions or proposals which warrant the attention or involvement of the Wikimedia Foundation belong at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF).
Software changes which have consensus should be filed at Phabricator.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for nine days.

« Archives, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212

Create an alias for the Template namespace[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There's a lot to unpack here but I'll give it a shot:

I believe there is a rough consensus that an alias should be created, although there are certainly some users who reject the entire concept.
"tp" is for sure rejected as an alias
"tl" is not usable for technical reasons
of the remaining options, "tm" has the most support and should be the new alias.
Note that I am just closing the discussion, I leave enacting the decision to the more technically-minded. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Task created Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing that tp: be added as an alias to the Template: namespace per this discussion.

Note: Though previous aliases were already listed on perennial proposals, it proposed t:, which would have conflicted with some article titles, or be confused with the Talk: namespace. Tp:, on the other hand, wouldn't, and would make it way quicker to look up a template in the search bar.

Edit (during rfc): tp: was not fully supported due to it being confused with "Talk Page", however other options were proposed, like hard coding {{ being replaced by Template: in the search bar, or other aliases like tmp:. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Template" is not a long word, and nobody abbreviates it as "tp" these days. This seems pointless. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought it'd make it consistent with wp: for Wikipedia:, which is 10 characters, while Template: is 9 characters. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody abbreviates it as "tp" these days. Even if that is true it is not a reason for us not to do so. Wikipedia is big enough to be making fashions rather than following them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. — Frostly (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd find it useful. It's less effort to type "tp:infobox person" in the search box than "template:infobox person" (which is how I usually navigate to wp: and template: pages). Schazjmd (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Schazjmd. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd absolutely love this. I've often wondered if there was some technical problem that was preventing us doing this. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Pretty nice QOL change. Per Schazjmd. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a good idea to create an alias (and implicitly creating more English Wikipedia jargon) just to improve the search function. We should instead improve the search capability directly. isaacl (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but you don't want a casual reader to be confused as to why they ended up on a template page Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a lot easier for the casual user to stumble upon a namespace alias, which could happen anywhere they enter an URL that might trigger a browser to launch, than for them to deliberately select the search box and type there. Furthermore, if this isn't intended to be used by a broad audience, then a more targeted solution would be better. Users wanting this functionality can make use of the script to which you were pointed in the previous thread, or they can configure their OS to provide an appropriate macro expansion to shorten the number of keystrokes they use. isaacl (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the script seems to be User:Ahecht/Scripts/TemplateSearch. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"tp" seems very easily misconstrued as "Talk Page" at a glance. CMD (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Sdkb ^talk 18:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been wanting this. It really is irksome to type out "Template:" I since learned today there are scripts, and of course {{tld}} for talk pages, but it would be much cleaner and simpler to have a standard abbrev. and this is technically easy to implement. TP: or T: it doesn't matter they both are fine. I prefer T: -- GreenC 18:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unless I'm missing something, the TP: prefix was proposed in 2015, in a discussion which was closed as no consensus - Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 127#Prefix suggestion: TP: for Template:. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 19:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the reasons in WP:PEREN#Create shortcut namespace aliases for various namespaces. In particular, the Template namespace is generally not linked often enough that saving the typing of 6 characters is likely to be at all worthwhile and there's nothing available to use for the corresponding talk pages. Anomie⚔ 20:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- there's nothing available to use for the corresponding talk pages See Nirvana fallacy. — Frostly (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template for linking a template is called {{tl}}. Shouldn't we have some consistency between this and the short-cut? Or is "tl" already used? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger tl is ISO639 for tagalog. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{tl}} is short for {{template link}}, so the el doesn't have anything to do with templates qua templates. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – While there are helpful template shortcuts, like {{t}} and its siblings, that can be used in discussions, and a script that can be used in the on-wiki searchbox to convert {{ to Template:, a namespace shortcut (tp:) would help in edit summaries and customised browser search boxes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Adding layers of obfuscation is not helpful. If I want to refer to {{convert}}, writing Template:Convert is easy and helpful to someone reading my comment. Writing Tp:Convert is unnecessary jargon that saves under a second of typing at the cost of head-scratching for readers. tp would be "talk page" for many. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As someone who has next to no involvement with template editing, I immediately think of 'talk page' when I see 'tp'. It would confuse many people who edit outside of the technical areas of Wikipedia. (Summoned by bot) JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the template mainspace from "Template:" to "Plantilla:" and use "Pl:" as a shortcut CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be quite a big change, but I'm not against it lol Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this is in español ROTFL -- Zand Dev 13:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there's no way we'll get consensus on that one Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, no. Also even on eswiki that uses that namespace name this couldn't happen as Pl is ISO639 for Polish. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Oppose I'd support hard-coding {{→Template: into the search box's autocomplete natively rather than using my script as a hack, but I agree that the widespread use of links like TP:Example are an unnecessary layer of obfuscation/jargon. With the WP prefix, at least the shortcut links are mostly self explanatory, but it wouldn't be obvious to a newcomer what, for example, tp:birds is, or why it's not an article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht Yes, hard-coding that directly could be a great alternative. I just think that we need to find a solution for this, and maybe tp: wasn't the best as others have pointed out. I'll continue gathering some ideas and then conduct a sub-RfC to see what option would be best, as long as the consensus doesn't seem to be oppose. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
neutral i could go either way. I like the hard coding option of having 'template' be dropdown option in the menu. Slacker13 (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I don't think that adding the t: will add an another level of obfuscation. The current method of making interwiki link is already obscure and complicated, specially for newbies, instead a simple alias to the template namespace will be easy and handy in researches. -- Zand Dev 13:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I suggested tp: though, not t: as it was rejected previously: does that work for you? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cocobb8: I'm in favor to the proposal of create an alias for the template namespace, but I believe that I, when I would see one of these link, would not associate tp: directly with templates, but with talk pages. -- Zand Dev 16:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do work with templates but I feel that this is not an intuitive shortcut and could easily be confused with "talk page". (t · c) buidhe 04:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support , I had typed TP: prefix in the past thinking that I would get the template page without success. This would be useful in different scenarios (just like the WP: prefix). And its use is optional, so if someone doesn't like it, they can go with the full Template: as ever. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unnecessary, and just as with T=Talk, TP=Talk Page. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Agree with the principle, would prefer access to a shortened version; but also agree that the proposal is too close to talk page. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think supporting {{ in the search bar would be sufficient to support the use case of issue. But beside that, I agree with oppose comments above. Izno (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Not intuitive and I'm not convinced this solves a genuine problem -Fastily 21:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support because I have typed "Twmplate" in the search bar too many goddamn times. Mach61 21:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I have to do everything on mobile, and am looking up templates all the time. This would make that a significantly less laborious and typo-prone experience. But I'd be happy with some other 2- or 3-letter shortcut if TP: is a problem. No more than 3 letters, though. Also I keep typing TP:, TMP: or TPL: without thinking, expecting them to work. But I only want it for search purposes. I'd be opposed to its use as jargon for referring to templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiconeologist (talk • contribs) 01:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To help you out immediately, you can use the text expansion feature or apps on your phone to expand an abbreviated string to a longer one. isaacl (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, this is rather basic and I've already got a vast number of shortcuts set up. The one I'd naturally use for templates translates tem into {{|}}. There are two points, though: (i) it's counterintuitive and annoying that the whole word is needed, in contrast to wp: etc.; and (ii) beyond three characters, it stops really being a shortcut because it's only a bit shorter. Part of the annoyance is in having to remember that there isn't a 2-letter prefix to use. Musiconeologist (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alias {{ (if technically possible): no ambiguity and concise. Typing {{Rfc should take you to Template:Rfc and so should {{Rfc}}. I'm neutral on aliasing TP as the ambiguity may be balanced out by utility. I like T better despite previous community rejection. — Bilorv (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is technically possible for {{ to be implemented, and there already is code for it if you want to try it out. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support any shortcut except just T. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support saves me a few characters/seconds when accessing templates through the search bar, might even make up for the seconds wasted to write this comment. Tl, tmp or tpl works for me if people object to tp. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is an excellent idea. I type "Template:" in the search box a lot and it seems many other users do as well, so it makes sense to add a prefix. Preferably it wouldn't be "TP" if a good amount of people have issues with that; I don't care about what ends up being chosen as it remains relatively short (2 or 3 letters). ― novov (t c) 02:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Aliasing {{ is less preferable to me because a shortcut would also allow shortening template links in edit summaries, where {{tl}} is unavailable. The particular shortcut used doesn't matter to me, just that I won't have to type "Template:" every time. Nickps (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think about the possibility of [[{{example}}]] Aaron Liu (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Why should we introduce a way to link to pages that only works in edit summaries and nowhere else? (Note that using it elsewhere will transclude example instead.) TMP:example on the other hand, will work in Search, in talk pages and in edit summaries and the fact that it's a unified syntax makes it easier for non power users to learn. I'm not opposed to introducing {{ for Search (alongside a regular shortcut) as long as we take measures to make sure that people don't end up on the wrong page. That is, if e.g. {{foo}} exists we should add a {{technical reasons}} hatnote to Template:foo/doc. Nickps (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nickps It's already impossible to start a title with a bracket, see [1] Mach61 12:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware. That doesn't mean there aren't topics whose WP:COMMONNAMEs start with {{. Nickps (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've been at this for ten years and still hate calling up a template doc because it requires so damn much typing. The more typing, the more opportunity for typos that have to be corrected (and I'm good at typos). No objection to something other than TP, such as TM, although no doubt someone would say that could be confused with something else. The longer it gets (e.g. TMP), the less benefit. Something like this doesn't need to be descriptive, just easy to remember. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doc pages don't require much more typing - and if four characters is too many, there is always the "view" link top right of the green doc box that is displayed on the main template page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about calling up template doc when I don't have a link to click, such as {{infobox person}} (I'm looking to read the doc, not edit it, so the transclusion on the "main template page" is all I need). So I'm typing into the search box, and typing nine characters before I even get to the template name. I would dislike three characters (tm:) one-third (3⁄9) as much. My question is: Why NOT do this? Where's the significant downside? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Redrose thought that you meant actually manually going to the /doc subpage. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. Hence my attempt at clarification. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: I highly recommend User:Ahecht/Scripts/TemplateSearch. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I prefer solutions that benefit everybody, not just those who are aware of a script and choose to use it. I'm not here just for myself. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Don't get why this hasn't been done already. We have wp: because typing "wikipedia:consensus" is tedious. And I can't spell template—I misspell it tempalte all the time—so an alias would be very nice. Anything four characters or shorter would be fine by me; I especially like the {{ idea. And to those who think that creating an alias will cause confusion—really? Is wp:sectionlink any more confusing than tm:sectionlink or something similar? You'll be lost for all of two seconds, if that. Cessaune [talk] 03:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
omg I thought I had something really wrong with my fingers for always spelling tempalte Aaron Liu (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support Been meaning to propose this for a while! Any concerns about confusion can be fixed by an experienced editor spending one minute noticing the new system. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template namespace alias: Second survey[edit]

It seems to me we might have wide enough support for this to pass as a general concept. But I think a closer would be unable to decide on the specific alias to use, so we'd be looking at another RfC to decide that (ugh). Therefore a separate survey is in order. Eliminating tp:, I see at least tentative support for t:, tl:, tm:, tmp:, and tpl: (am I missing any?). I don't think this needs ranked voting—the specific choice isn't that critical~~—so it would be great if editors could just specify their one favorite~~. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Redacted 05:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This section is not for opposition to the general concept; see my reply to Anomie's Oppose, below. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of all participants to date, regardless of the nature of participation; you commented, you get notified. @Aaron Liu, Ahecht, Alexcalamaro, Anomie, ARandomName123, A smart kitten, Bilorv, Buidhe, CactiStaccingCrane, Chipmunkdavis, Cocobb8, Cremastra, Draken Bowser, Fastily, Frostly, Goldsztajn, GreenC, Isaacl, Izno, Jlwoodwa, JML1148, Johnuniq, Mach61, Michael Bednarek, Mir Novov, Musiconeologist, Nickps, Phil Bridger, Pppery, Redrose64, Schazjmd, Slacker13, Usedtobecool, Wjemather, Xaosflux, and ZandDev: ―Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~tm:~~ t: ―Mandruss ☎ 22:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Redacted 04:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
t: and tm: are no good because they deprive mainspace articles like t:kort of the title they deserve. tl is already in use to refer to the Tagalog Wikipedia. Fine with the others. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC) (edited * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
I struck tl:, it is not valid as it is an ISO language code. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Woops. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find the "title they deserve" argument uncompelling in the greater scheme. Those wacky norsk and a few others might have to take one for the team. By eliminating t and tm, you're effectively forcing a three-character alias (unless we want to back up and introduce something like te at this late date, which would probably meet with its own opposition anyway). Just for fun, how about an example of a tm-"killer"? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anomie provided one below. And te is already used for the Telugu Wikipedia. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Told ya. Hell, while you might be able to produce a better example, I wonder if t:kort would survive AFD. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
T:kort seems to be the only one for t:, other than some redirects which would work just as well from template namespace. But I think it would survive AfD - why would it be any less notable than anything else in Category:Fare collection systems, keeping in mind WP:Systemic bias and that sources are probably in Norwegian? Since I don't see a compelling reason for this proposal at all you aren't going to be able to convince me to cause a clear harm in the name of a dubious benefit. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Just don't want anybody getting the impression that t and tm are now off the table like tl. The fact that they aren't stricken in the intro should be enough, but ya never know... ―Mandruss ☎ 03:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On t:kort specifically, which appears to be the only article that starts with T:, I don't think it actually should have that title per MOS:TM. The use of a colon isn't standard Norwegian orthography and the majority of third-party sources appear to call it "T-kort". – Joe (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I see you've done that move. Well damn, now I'm tempted to change my vote from tm to t. But then I'd have to re-ping everybody; not sure it's worth it. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are still some links to the redirect at T:kort and quite a few others. OTOH, I don't understand the objections based ISO language codes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's established convention that links prefixed with a language code go to that language's edition. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if they exist, like tl:, but not for tpl:, tmp:, tem:. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a Wikipedia is created for a language, the ISO 639 code will be used in its URL and for its wikilinks (like how de: or es: link to German or Spanish Wikipedias, or how they can link back to us with en:). A namespace alias would conflict with that, preventing linking to that Wikipedia, so such aliases are often preemptively avoided. Anomie ⚔ 13:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those other redirects are cross-mainspace redirects to templates, i.e. using "T:" as a pseudo-namespace. Obviously they wouldn't be affected by this proposal. The exceptions I can see are:
T:A → Tribes: Ascend

T:DS → Thief: Deadly Shadows

T:MP → Talk:Main Page

T:SCC, T:TSCC, T: SCC → Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles

T:SCC Episodes → List of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes

T: New York Times Style Magazine, T: The New York Times Style Magazine → T (magazine)

– Joe (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of those, Template:A is salted so could be recreated as a redirect to Tribes: Ascend, Template:DS is a pointer to a defunct template so could probably be hijacked as a redirect to Thief: Deadly Shadows, Template:SCC is an unused redirect to Template:Supreme Court of Canada sidebar that could easily be retargeted to Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, and Template:MP, Template:TSCC, Template:SCC Episodes, Template:New York Times Style Magazine, and Template:Kort are all red. Still opposed to t: since it would cause avoidable confusion, but less strongly so than before. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few more than those, in particular T:APRM→Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie; T:OTD→WP:Selected anniversaries; and T:DYKT, T:TDYK, T:TDYKA, and T:tdyk pointing at Template talk: titles. —Cryptic 12:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Template:OTD points to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/Date. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Template:DYKT points to a different place than T:DYKT and both are in use. The others are fine: Template:ARPM, Template:TDYK, Template:TDYKA, and Template:tdyk are all red. Template:OTD vs. T:OTD difference seems to be a historical accident not a deliberate difference. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'd be fine with any of the choices.~~ Schazjmd (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Schazjmd: Yeah, this is the kind of "vote" that doesn't get us any closer to consensus. You might as well have saved yourself the trouble. Maybe you could just close your eyes and pick one? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tm: Cremastra (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
T is fine just as we use "h" for help space all over.Moxy🍁 23:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tm: prefer this than single letter "t" which still retains a "talk" ambiguity. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tm: because T: is already used, it's shorter than tpl:, and tmp: is misleading/confusing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Since you pinged me, I still oppose the whole idea. I note that "t" could be confused with "talk", as was already noted, "tpl" is the ISO 639 code for Tlacoapa, and "tmp" is a deprecated (but apparently not unassigned) ISO 639 code for Tai Mène. Also of note are articles T:kort and TM:103 Hustlerz Ambition that would be affected by certain of the proposals here (plus a few other redirects starting with "T:", such as T: New York Times Style Magazine). Anomie ⚔ 00:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged you because pinging everybody was a whole lot easier than trying to decide who should be pinged for this section. I might decide wrong and piss somebody off. This section is not for opposition to the general concept; that's the other one. If the general concept doesn't pass, this section will prove a waste of time, but it's still worthwhile. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tm or t8 are fine. The "8" might seem radical, but it's actually a typical method for shortening long words, such as l18n or k8s - eight being a familiar number for this purpose. No matter the choice, there will likely be edge case overlaps. That shouldn't stop it though. There are likely edge cases for WP, File, and whatever else. -- GreenC 01:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8 is just outside the normal typing zone on a normal keyboard and requires extra clicks to get to on a phone keyboard. I oppose it. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8 is just outside the normal typing zone on a normal keyboard - I don't know, but really? -- GreenC 01:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also support tm. Ideally I'd support tp: the most, which also has no usages, and establishing this convention would prevent confusion, but it seems this has been struck down already. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also support t: per novov. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tm or tp for me. tl would also be OK, and would match the existing {{tl}} template. Musiconeologist (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that seems to have ended up in the wrong place. If anyone feels like moving it properly into the list of replies, please do. I'm hampered by the size of the page. Musiconeologist (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Protip: Use c:commons:Convenient Discussions. It formats bullet-point replies correctly. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We ended up both moving it at the same time! I got an edit conflict, then discovered it was now in the right place anyway. I now know to add a new bullet point, not a new reply via the reply link. Musiconeologist (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tl is off the table; that's why there's a line through it. See this edit. tp was eliminated because of strong opposition to something that looks like "talk page". It helps to read before posting. We'll assume you like tm, then. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(and as said above tl is off the table because it already refers to the tagalog wikipedia) Aaron Liu (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did, then I read considerably more (the whole discussion). It's late at night, I was battling to navigate the page in a tiny window, and I didn't remember that specific detail among all the others. Anyway, tp is my first choice. Musiconeologist (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anarchist. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, tm is fine. And my irritability suggests I need sleep, (I find the opposition to tp surprising though. I expect the alias to be a contraction of one word.) Musiconeologist (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tm is a contraction of template. It just uses the first and second consonants instead of the first and third. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Same as tp. I wasn't saying any different. I just meant that I'm surprised people would intuitively interpret tp as talk page rather than template when using acronyms would obviously be a different model. But they do, and that's fine. Musiconeologist (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Get some sleep. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TM: , as my prefered TP: has been discarded per above. Alexcalamaro (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tem. Still saves a whole plate. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note "tem" is the ISO 639 code for Temne. Anomie ⚔ 11:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's so obscure!! Hyperbolick (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to the two million people that speak Temne. – Joe (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: Aside that being .00025% of the world, what number of Temne speakers would even know that that’s its abbreviation? Hyperbolick (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I don't speak Temne. But if/when we have a Temne Wikipedia, it'll be how we link to it. – Joe (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose t, not sold on the concept as a whole but the others don't seem to hold the potential confusion the initial proposal did. CMD (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{ is my first choice and t is my second choice (and I don't understand why I have to say it twice). — Bilorv (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because to achieve something from this proposal it is necessary to converge to a few and ideally to a single prefix. -- Zand Dev 11:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if a non-alphanumeric namespace alias is possible, but if it is, I suspect {{: would pose a problem for many existing tools and scripts that parse wikitext, including syntax highlighting tools. isaacl (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the {{ option does not include a : and would require additional programming. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for being overly concise. I included the : to emphasize that the proposal is for a namespace alias, and not to suggest that there would be a colon in the namespace alias. Yes, the point of my comment was that not only might there be a need for changes to MediaWiki software, but to many existing tools and scripts, including syntax highlighting tools. isaacl (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The {{ option is not supposed to be a namespace alias that would still require the colon. It's proposed to be what seems to be a searchbar alias plus maybe an edit summary alias. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not necessary to explain proposals that I'm already aware of (as per my previous comments). If someone isn't proposing a namespace alias, then they shouldn't list it as their preferred option in this section. isaacl (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It also wouldn't really help on mobile, at least with SwiftKey, since accessing the braces entails either a long keypress for each one or switching to symbol layout. Either way it's probably easier to type the whole word than use the alias. Musiconeologist (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose anything and everything that conflicts with an article, including "T:" and "TM:", I also oppose "tp" as it is more likely to refer to "talk page" than "TemPlate". Neutral on other suggestions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tpl:Slacker13 (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Immediately comprehensible, easy to remember Musiconeologist (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tm: for it does not conflict with talk pages in any way, and is the most logical one to me. Would also be fine with tmp: and tpl:. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First choices: t, tp, tm
Second choice: Aliasing {{
Last choices: Anything with a number or 3+ letters
Honestly, I would suggest whoever closes this just narrowes down the 2-3 most viable options, selects one randomly, and comes up with a post-hoc justification. This isn't worth spending a lot of time on Mach61 17:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tm is also a language code. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problems, [[tm:]] isn't a valid interlanguage link. Mach61 17:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what I was talking about. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that could work, but to me it looks like tm: is the one gathering the most support so far. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
T: is the straightforward and shortest prefix: it does its job better. The main problem is that it could be confused with talk, but I noticed that all here said that 'tp' seems to refer to 'talk page', so why not use it for talk pages? People will adapt to the chosen solution and have to remember it. Also tm is not direct (but for me acceptable). Zand Dev 18:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's too much work to have everyone adapt to a new thing. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic about namespace aliases for other things. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that all here said that 'tp' seems to refer to 'talk page', so why not use it for talk pages? You're proposing a tp: alias for talk:? Aren't you a bit off topic? Besides, it would save only two characters, not 5–7: a truly negligible improvement. Besides, there are at least two kinds of talk pages, article and user. That's if you exclude other talk spaces, such as this one. If any additional aliases might make sense, they would be atp: for talk: and utp: for user talk:—the words "talk page" can be ambiguous in some contexts, so I try to use those acronyms wherever such ambiguity might exist. Apologies for extending the off-topic; sometimes I can't help myself! ―Mandruss ☎ 05:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, it isn't worth it to add tp: as an alias to talk:, the latter being already pretty short. However, for whatever ends up being chosen for template:, might it work to add an extra t in that alias for the template talk: namespace? Say, if tm: is the one chose, then tmt: could alias template talk:. Also, a shorter alias for user talk: would be ut:. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note "tmt" is the ISO 639 code for Tasmate. Anomie ⚔ 13:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: people realize that t: is the existing psudeo-namespace for templates, as seen at T:CN and T:DYK? That doesn't mean you HAVE to support it, but it makes the arguments that it would be "confusing" stange, as it is already in use. Mach61 12:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also T:MP, and there's no evidence that people not already in the know aren't confused by those. Plus it could turn out to be more confusing once people can use it for every template rather than only the handful of pseudo-namespace redirects that have been allowed. Anomie ⚔ 13:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Let me see if I understand this. If the colon were removed from the title at TM:103 Hustlerz Ambition (a vanishingly insignificant cost to the project, although some Jeezy fans would disagree), that would create a redirect with the colon that wouldn't work because of a tm: namespace alias? Then we should consider manually changing all existing links to that article (104 entries in that list, although I don't know how many would have to change) and deleting the unusable redirect. Then all we'd have to worry about is the possibility that some obscure Tamboori Wikipedia (e.g.), Tamboori being spoken by 112 people on a remote island in the South Pacific, will be created in the future and somebody at en-wiki will want to link to it. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss actually, we could just create a template page and redirect that (see Help:A Day in the Life for an analogous case). The issue is when there is already an existing template with the same name as a mainspace page after the prefix. Mach61 14:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Well there's something to be said for knowing I don't understand something, since I'll talk less. I don't know how much of an obstacle we're talking about. I do believe that we should be prepared to make some sacrifice to make this work. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's super easy to create an alias template, provided that the alias doesn't conflict with article titles/redirects already. Which is the main issue. Cessaune [talk] 15:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it seems that Jeezy is a thoughtful Wikipedian, as he chose an appropriate spelling for his 2019 album title : TM104: The Legend of the Snowman, just to avoid conflict :-) Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tm or Tl Both are close to the colon-key, which is always practical. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Draken Bowser: tl is off the table, hence the strikethrough in the intro to this section. See previous discussion in this section. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After further consideration, I would probably go for t: or tmp:/tpl:. Any collision with article space can be solved by redirects, similar to Portal:No Escape, given the number of offenders is relatively small. TM: is a non-starter in my opinion since many keyboards auto-correct it to a U+2122 ™ TRADE MARK SIGN, and the point of a shortcut is to avoid difficulty. ― novov (t c) 02:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very valid point. However, I've not seen that happen inside search boxes or on Wikipedia as far as I can remember, which are basically the only scenarios in which anyone would be typing template: anyway. Cessaune [talk] 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it does happen for me; afaik it's a default text replacement on macOS. I'd disable it, but I find the ability legitimately useful in other circumstances. ― novov (t c) 07:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First choice Tm, second choice T: — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Browser config[edit]

I do not know about the rest, but on chrome, using the search engine shortcut feature worked perfectly.

Go to chrome://settings/searchEngines
Click "Add" that's next to "Site search"
Fill out: Name = [Anything], Shortcut = [I picked "tt"] , URL with %s in place of query = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:%s

That's it. After that, just type out your shortcut, followed by title, separated by a space/tab, on the address bar and hit enter. Everyone can pick whatever shortcut they like, for all namespaces and even page prefixes of their choice. You can add one for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%s to go to RFAs by just typing out usernames, for example. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's good for an alternative in the meantime! But tp: would make it easier regardless of the platform people use to contribute. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 11:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use User:Ahecht/Scripts/TemplateSearch to automatically replace TP: and {{ in the Wikipedia search box with Template:. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:31, 11 April 2024 (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.

Allow all autoconfirmed users to move pages without leaving a redirect[edit]

REJECTED

There clearly is not broad support for this proposal. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

While redirects from page moves are commonly kept, there are reasons why they should not be kept as seen at WP:PMRC. For example, moving an article to draft space or to reverse page moves vandalism. This is common even for those without special tools (such as page mover or admin). This is so that normal users do not have to tag the page to request deletion and saves times for the admins (and users with the page mover tool) to do the work. Obviously this will not be an option for unregistered or new users, or for pages that are already move protected. The 'leave a redirect' button (or something along those lines) will be on by default and users who need to remove the redirect will have to manually press a button to turn it off. JuniperChill (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed: Being granted pagemover isn't that big a deal, but it does require you to demonstrate that you understand the relevant policies, and a quick look at WP:PERM/PM shows me that most requests are denied. Granting this to all autoconfirmed users with no human review would be unadvisable. RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the change in focus, I'm opposed even to making this automatic for all extended confirmed users. If you really need the ability, just apply at WP:PERM/PM when you get the required experience. RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I wouldn't feel comfortable with trusting all autoconfirmed users to move a page without leaving a redirect. At the very most, I would slightly support having it for all extended confirmed users (but not autoconfirmed). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose autoconfirmed is trivial, and vandalism of "disappearing" articles (by moving them to say another namespace) can be annoying to fix, can result in patrolling get skipped, and is certainly disruptive to readers. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for autoconfirmed, support for extended confirmed. A person who games extended confirmed to make vandalistic moves will quickly find that their extended confirmed permission is gone. Awesome Aasim 16:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose even for extended confirmed - we already have rampant violations of the WP:PMRC criteria by page movers, and don't need to make it worse. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Own comment, I want to change this to all extended confirmed users, but does the discussion above need to be closed and I have to make a separate one below? It will be the same text I said earlier, but with small changes so that it is now all EC users. JuniperChill (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we are so bureaucratic as to require you to start a new discussion, but I guess that if any of the editors who has already commented objects you should. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I can leave this discussion to be (leave it as it is) because some others have suggested supporting it for EC users instead. JuniperChill (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose even for extended confirmed. It's not difficult for anyone that needs and can be trusted with this right to apply for it. If they don't need it then it's just hat collecting. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose even for extended confirmed, per Pppery, Phil Bridger and Xaosflux. Most moves should leave a redirect but many people (even some admins) don't understand this, the pagemover right is a necessary (but not sufficient) check to ensure that the relevant policies and guidelines have been read and understood. Thryduulf (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose even for extended confirmed. It shouldn't be a thing for anyone but trusted users - all it will lead to is disruption. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oppose, as this would create many controversial page moves and page-move disputes that are prevented by the existence of a redirect. Uncontroversial page moves can be requested at the tecnical requests page.InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support for extended confirmed users. As these users are more experienced, aware of the policies and guidelines, I believe that little or no disruption would occur if they could move pages without making redirects, to move pages using the Round-robin method. As we currently have less than 1300 page movers, this would make certain processes (such as moving an accepted draft to mainspace, or reverting page-move vandalism) less bureaucratic and more automatic. I also admit that I never understood why we have a user with the right only to move pages, used by only 1400 editors of which the majority are administrators.InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who is autoconfirmed can move pages. The pagemover right lets you delete the redirect that is left behind. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both (as a pagemover). Solution in search of a problem. The speedy deletion system is perfectly sufficient to delete these errant redirects. Queen of ♡ | speak 06:52, 28 April 2024 (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.

Post closure comment - Looks like I should have said ECP users, but it looks like the proposal will still not survive regardless. I counted 0/10 support for AC users and 3 for EC users (excluding the proposer). I made this proposal because of the amount of times its useful to not leave a redirect, as stated above but other than that, keep it. Maybe at least from main to draftspace, redirects would be deleted regardless. I didn't think that by this way, non admins could effectively delete the page when it was actually moved elsewhere

(not sure if this is the right place to put post closure comments as it is just below the discussion, just no more support/oppose votes) JuniperChill (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal at Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians[edit]

There is a split proposal at Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians § Split proposal that may be of interest to editors. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 11:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add nowrap for para[edit]

Wrong venue. Copied from the edit request at Template talk:Para#Add nowrap for para, which was rejected as "consensus required". April 2023 attempt to seek said consensus received no response. That system leaves a lot to be desired.

I used {{para}} and got a line break after the pipe character. This looked ridiculous and makes little sense. I assume other line breaks would be possible, such as after a hyphen in the parameter name. Adding {{nowrap}} or equivalent would make far more sense than requiring editors to code, e.g., {{nowrap|{{para|archive-url}}}}. While Note 2 below the table at "General-purpose formatting" speaks of nowrap options, I'm at a loss to see how they help my situation. In any event, I don't see how automatic, unconditional nowrap for all uses of {{para}} could be the slightest bit controversial. At the very least, an option could be added to suppress the default of nowrap for cases where horizontal space is limited, such as in tables.

See also Template talk:Para#no line-breaks in output, where a request for this was ignored (or never seen) 13 months ago. As to If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template., well, we've seen how effective that was. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that the edit request was declined, when this seems like a fairly straightforward improvement and there seems to be a silent consensus to implement. I will plan to implement unless there are objections (courtesy pinging @Redrose64 as edit request responder). (Yes, coming here for this is a little POINTy, but the frustration at the edit request is understandable, and in any case let's not get bogged down by process concerns. Next time, though, I'd suggest replying to or talk page messaging the edit request responder.) Sdkb ^talk 22:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did reply to Rose, with a ping, a mere four minutes after her rejection. When she hadn't replied after another 25 minutes, I surmised that she wasn't going to. Mea culpa: If I had checked her contribs, I would've seen that she hadn't made an edit after the rejection, so it's likely she left the site during those four minutes. Now self-flagellating for one hour. In any case, Rose doesn't change her mind much in my experience; she's that good.

I fail to see any POINTiness here; I'm just playing the cards I was dealt. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally against adding nowrap, and would rather see it's use curtailed. It's causes endless formatting issues for those not using desktop screens, where the auto-formatter would do a better job. Nor do I see how not having 'para' wrap is an improvement, wrapping won't lead to any misunderstanding and may not even be wrapped on different screen aspects. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From a usability standpoint, |archive-url= should all be on one line, not wrapped, because "archive-url" is a single concept (the parameter name) and should not be split in any way, despite the hyphen. I do not find broader ideological opposition to nowrap persuasive if it is applied reflexively to this circumstance without considering the particular situation here. I would find examples of instances in which parameters should be wrapped much more persuasive. Sdkb ^talk 02:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to hear from TheDJ, who appears to have disabled nowrapping after it had been in place for about 11 years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Applying nowrap to anything longer than a word is really bad practice and causes many issues for mobile, and situations where width is restricted. if you are going to apply it, apply it just to to the param= part, not to values (which can be giant urls) and definitely not to the entire line. A lot has changed in 11 years. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 06:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems here is that people give examples of common usages of this template. The problem is that those are NOT the only usages of the template. Even the doc page of the template itself has examples of pretty long values that basically form an entire sentence. Making an entire line not wrap is bad. Htm has to be flexible for many situations and if you set a very strict css option on a very generic template block that has very differing uses, you will run into problems like this. Solutions are to make the css more targeted (which in this case means being more strict about what the parameters can be, instead of just wrapping the template around a block of arbitrary text) or applying the css more targeted. |archive-url= for instance is ok.it just requires more thought by those writing the uses. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 06:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Applying it only to the param= part sounds reasonable. Sdkb ^talk 14:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with that, provided it included the pipe character (that was the case that brought me here). ―Mandruss ☎ 16:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDJ: Looks like a limited-participation agreement, but I don't see any edit activity to the template. And this is due to fall off the page in three days. At the least, this comment will keep it for another nine. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]