Template talk:Split section

This template was considered for deletion on 7 October 2023. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

Adding discussion parameter?

Question, how does one add the discussion parameter when using this template?

FrozenPurpleCube 21:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red link

Regarding [1], people have repeatedly re-created nonsense at the page "New article" (activity log), so this will soon again no longer be a red link, but a non-encyclopedic page in the main namespace. —Centrx→talk • 02:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PAGENAMEE?

There is a reference to PAGENAMEE (i.e. two E's at the end) in the template source. Is this in fact a typographical error? —Adavidb 12:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion parameter not working

The parameter talksection= is not adding the heading to the (Discuss) link. Looking at the code, there's nothing there to do that. Could we please either fix the code or the doc that claims you can use it? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talksection

Seems even more absent. Rich Farmbrough, 13:21 16 August 2008 (GMT).

Instructions

This template's page is very clear that the template must be used properly, but the instructions on how to do so are not at all approachable to the average editor.--otherlleft (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit protected -- date

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add a date display to this template. A mockup is available in the sandbox Template:Split section/sandbox.

Please also split the test cases off from the sandbox page to the standard template test cases page Template:Split section/testcases

76.65.128.198 (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: Note this page is only semi-protected, so any autoconfirmed user (a very low bar; sign up for an account now, and you too could be autoconfirmed in 4 days!) could make the edit; {{edit semiprotected}} should be used instead of {{editprotected}} in that case. I did make the edit to the template. I didn't split the testcases, but I created the testcases subpage for you so you should now be able to move the test cases yourself even without creating an account. Anomie ⚔ 00:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I've moved the test cases to the separate subpage. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Perhaps you forgot to save the edit? It's not showing up in the template history [2] -- last edit was in September. The sandbox version adds a displayed date so that people can tell how long then template has been emplaced, without looking at code or hidden categories. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought for sure I saved it, unless I just hit "Preview" by mistake somehow. Anyway, re-

Done. Anomie ⚔ 15:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use Ambox

I propose to change the code of this template and the related Template:Split sections from {{Mbox}} back to {{Ambox}}. This was changed in this unexplained edit. There are a few good reasons to change back to Ambox:

Ambox is a template like Mbox, but supports more parameters, and is constantly being actively improved.
The Split section/s templates are not usually used outside article namespace. At present there are no such instances, and there were only 2, as opposed to 52 instances in article namespace.
That these templates should not be used outside article namespace is also indicated in their categories: "Article sections to be split", "Articles to be split", "All articles to be split".
If one were to make the argument that this template could be used outside article namespace, then I would counter that such argument could be applied to most maintenance templates, which are virtually all Amboxes! (I saw 58 Amboxes today, while only the mighty {{Cleanup}} has a complex code including Ambox and Mbox both.)

I made the change to Ambox yesterday, but to my surprise I was reverted, I now open this discussion, as advised by the reverting editor. See also this discussion on my talkpage, where I reply to his questions. Debresser (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to change the code of this template and the related Template:Split sections from {{Mbox}} back to {{Ambox}}. This was changed in this unexplained edit.

That "unexplained" edit, which occurred nearly four years ago, was summarized in precisely the same manner as your edit.

Ambox is a template like Mbox, but supports more parameters, and is constantly being actively improved.

Your use of said parameters enabled absolutely no additional functionality. You simply switched from one coding method to another, resulting in exactly the same category calls.

The only difference in the templates' rendered output was that they no longer were displayed with the correct styling outside the article namespace.

Also note that the editor responsible for expanding {{ambox}}'s parameters aspires to merge it with {{mbox}} (and the other *mboxes).

The Split section/s templates are not usually used outside article namespace. At present there are no such instances, and there were only 2, as opposed to 52 instances in article namespace.

Yes, there were two such transclusions (until you just eliminated them). Unquestionably, this is a minority usage. And?

That these templates should not be used outside article namespace is also indicated in their categories: "Article sections to be split", "Articles to be split", "All articles to be split".

These templates' categories technically are misnamed, but this has never bothered anyone enough to change them.

Note, conversely, the presence of conditional code to determine the wording ("page" or "article") depending on the namespace.

If one were to make the argument that this template could be used outside article namespace, then I would counter that such argument could be applied to most maintenance templates, which are virtually all Amboxes!

"Virtually all" is an overstatement. And as discussed on your talk page, most maintenance templates are are intended for use specifically in the article namespace (because they pertain to issues not relevant elsewhere). Those intended for use in multiple namespaces should be based on {{mbox}} (thereby generating the correct styling). Where one isn't, this is an oversight in need of correction.

I made the change to Ambox yesterday, but to my surprise I was reverted,

Pardon? I discussed the issue on your talk page and didn't revert until you stopped replying. —David Levy 03:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only point I'd like to reply to is the last. Indeed, almost all maintenance templates use Ambox, even though the issues they address are relevant not only to article namespace, but to other namespaces as well. E.g. style editing is relevant in Wikipedia, Portal and Help namespaces as well, and even template namespace, where the precise wording of (maintenance) templates is often discussed in great detail. Debresser (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Style editing" is a very broad description. The aforementioned {{cleanup}} tag relates to style, and it certainly can be used in various namespaces. That's why it's set up to employ {{mbox}}.

Conversely, templates such as {{copy to Wikiquote}}, {{essay-like}}, {{footballer-unknown-status}}, {{format footnotes}}, {{in popular culture}}, {{USRD-wrongdir}} and {{video game cleanup}} relate specifically to article content, so they rely on {{ambox}}.

Which {{ambox}}-based style templates do you regard as useful in non-article namespaces, and why do you believe that their existence justifies switching other non-article-specific templates from {{mbox}} instead of correcting the ones that are incorrectly coded now? —David Levy 10:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]