This template was considered for deletion on 18 March 2021. The result of the discussion was "keep".
Template:Template link is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit protected}} to notify an administrator to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.
Text has been copied to or from this page; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
This totally sounds like arguing without arguments. Could you guys explain how having
{{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}}
displayed above the documentation page helps the readability? The <includeonly> tag was invented for a reason. As it is it just looks like a broken page. --Grufo (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I seem to recall you have made this complaint in the past. Honestly, if I can see in a tenth of a second what the code is supposed to look like by seeing the raw info above the doc, I will take it. There is no reason to hide template output. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95:It shows the output of the template: It doesn't. This is the output of the template:
This, instead, is not the output of the template, is its source code (with the usage of HTML entities hidden):
{{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}}
@Primefac:I seem to recall you have made this complaint in the past: If I did I honestly don't remember, but I wouldn't be surprised. There is no reason to hide template output. Again, that is not the output, it is the source code. The fact that you appreciate the feeling of reconstructing in your mind how a template would look like by looking at its source code might not be a shared feeling among everyday users of this template. I, for example, on top of a documentation page prefer to see how a template looks like instead of seeing its source code. --Grufo (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the top of the page shows the actual output of the template when |1= is not specified. That is often done on template pages. Maybe I misunderstand the objection. If you want examples, the documentation is the place to look for those. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The top of the page shows the actual output of the template when |1= is not specified: Is that a possible case? From what I read in the TemplateData the |1= parameter is required. So what you call “output” is technically undefined behavior, which today manifests as the partial source code, tomorrow might manifest as an error message, or whatever. But since we live in the present, what we see today is the template's partial source code on top of its documentation page.
That is often done on template pages: Years ago, probably. Today we have <includeonly>...</includeonly>, and more and more template documentations have the wisdom of showing as early as possible (possibly on top) the template at work – not the template during undefined behavior.
To convince you once and for all. Imagine we decided to output an error message when |1= is missing (which would be totally legit, since it is a required parameter): would you still be happy to have “Error: Template name is missing” on top of the documentation page? What information would that give you, given that at that stage you won't even know what parameter you will have to use to provide a template name? Will that be |1=? Or will that be |tp= or |template= instead?
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Wrap the opening and closing brace pairs in {{nowrap}}. I have seen line-breaks between the two closing braces in the wild. This should probably be done to the other template link templates as well. Nickps (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. Line breaks exist for a reason. Some people have narrow text areas, especially with the new Vector 2022 skin. What is the actual harm in having a line break in a template link? – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was uncontroversial enough to skip that step. Anyway, my main problem with the line breaks is that {{ and }} are conceptually supposed to be one thing, so having a line break between them is jarring. I can't be the only one who thinks something like {{nowrap}
I missed the part where you said that there was a break between the braces, which should not happen. Where are you seeing two braces with a line break between them? I have never seen that. A screen shot may help. [ETA: never mind, I see now that the braces are made using HTML entities. I have suggested code in the sandbox: diff here.]– Jonesey95 (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my 15 years on Wikipedia, I had never seen this until the attached screenshot. Was it really worth making a change to cater for an extremely rare occurrence? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]