Template talk:Main/Archive 1

message: I really think we should be indenting. It's not in fact ugly, because if it needs to be clear that the text is not really part of the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Widely used utility templates like this one should be frozen (after a time), so they can be relied upon. Modifying such a template is like running a 'bot that makes cosmetic changes to thousands of pages. Mirror Vax 01:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: A lot of articles were written before templates, and a lot of editors don't know about templates. (SEWilco 15:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

text: If people can't rely on these little utility templates not changing according to the latest edit war, then they won't (and shouldn't) use them. That's why I suggested a freeze. Because if they are going to change every month, then they are worse than useless. Mirror Vax 21:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indenting. 

message: I added a little HTML comment ("main") at the end of the template, so when "subst:" is used there is a marker of the source of the text.  This will help bots (and other editors aware of this) to identify the line is associated with Template:main. (SEWilco 05:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  HTML comment for bots 

message: I hope everyone agrees with having a line return after main, so that the text that follows it isn't on the same line as Main article: History of Turkmenistan --Berkut 1 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)
:the indent colon takes care of that. --MarSch 2 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)
:Anyone know how to snip the superfluous newlines that wrap this template (or  if need be)? Is this a result of "pretty printing" the nested  templates? See: Dunkirk#History  for an example of the current WYSINWYG (What You See Is Not What You Get) behaviour.
:chocolateboy 22:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Carriage Return/Newline Padding

message: I've added < br / > to the template to force a break after the text. PS I won't be monitoring this page for comments. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
* I think there presently is an implied break after templates, but it seems reasonable to specifically include one on templates where a break is required.  (SEWilco 16:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  < br / > 

message: I believe indented See main article looks more professional than un-indented Main article. Comments, please. —Cantus…☎ 04:13, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Please get a consensus before changing the template, it has a long history of being a certain way. Although I dont know why anyone would ever choose to use this template since it changes almost daily. Stbalbach 04:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, do you agree or not with my changes? —Cantus…☎ 05:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
* Indented but no "See": I prefer indented for this element, but don't tell the reader to See something.  (SEWilco 14:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: See main article

message: The original author of this template has altered  the definition in Wikipedia:Template messages/Links of this  template's usage from "Articles top" to "Top of article sections".  The description in this page has been altered to include both article top and section top usage.  (SEWilco 04:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: subarticle has been replaced by simply article in the subarticle templates. It was causing a lot of confusion. The new distinction is between details and background. I'm considering moving them to reflect this change. I would like that they be used exclusively for summary style relations, but the discussion I've tried to start hasn't really gotten off the ground. See Wikipedia_talk:Summary_style#templates_to_make_summary_style_explicit. --MarSch 08:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template usage changed 

message: It has been discovered that use of  since it was redirected to  can apparently be identified.  Although seemain was invoked in those articles, apparently use of main is acceptable.  Should those articles which recently invoked seemain be converted to use main?
* Approve: The use of Main is apparently acceptable.  (SEWilco 02:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: August 25 2005: Conversion done by SEWilcoBot. (SEWilco 18:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Stbalbach 20:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Use of templates is optional, there is no imposition, it is a short-hand to typing it out, no one is obligated to use a template if they dont like how it looks or is worded, each article is up to the editors. Templates do no confer authority. Stbalbach 21:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seemain conversion to Main 

message: If you could demonstrate where/how the comment makes any difference in the rendering. I looked at a page both with and without the comment and it seemed to make no difference. Stbalbach 21:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which comment?  If you're referring to a comment which only has the name of the template in it, that is present to help an update bot find copies which have had subst: used on them.  (SEWilco 17:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment in template 

message: I hate this template. It blends with the rest of the article, it needs to stand out. It is also boring as hell. It needs to have bold added to it. This template is just incredably annoying.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 13:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think the indentation in this template is just about the ugliest thing in the entire Wikipedia. Anyway, how about a slight gray background? Fredrik | talk 12:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Instead of name-calling and proactively vowing to revert war, how about providing an explanation of why this change was logical?  —Lifeisunfair 00:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grievances 

message: Main article: Crushing by elephant
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
:And would you also so dramatically change all the other articles that use pretty much the same style, like :Template:otheruses? And fight to get the hundreds of thousands of articles that don't use this template but simply type out its text because it's a pretty brief template to follow the new style you're proposing? -Silence 12:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I wouldn't personally do that. Sorry for having an idea. Fredrik | talk 12:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I never mentioned the idea, I mentioned the hypothetical implementation of it. Whether it's a good idea or not, how practical it is is a significant factor. -Silence 12:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The present template has been edited numerous times already, causing inconsistency with the thousands of articles that don't use it. This shouldn't be much worse. Fredrik | talk 12:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The present template is consistent since it was first created, or at least for the majority of its life.  I'd suggest this template adds additional rendering complexity (CPU load), considering how many times per second the {main} template is being called, probably one of the most common across the entire project, it is a factor. With that said, main is optional, and you can use the above new style/look wherever you want instead of the main template. If other people start using it, and assuming it survives any TfD vote, it can start taking on a life of its own and who known maybe one day people will vote to make it default across the entire project. Thats the best way to approach it, by actual usage and consensus building over time. BTW I think it might look better if the blue bar extended only the length of the text and not across the entire page, just an idea. Stbalbach 17:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Anything to make this template stand out. I just can't stand the way it is now. I still think the link needs to be bolded. I just bolded after the above discussion sat idle for a month or so. I felt that gave everyone enough time to see and comment on my plans. The way it was (probably is whenever some jerk decides to revert my edit) was maddeningly boring. We keep talking about changing it but nothing ever happens. All the people who try and take action are reverted. That is tyranny! WE NEED ACTION! -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Example section

message: I propose this
Main article .
It's from Italian Wikipedia. I think it's nice. Let me know. Attilios
:Too much server and bandwidth load overhead. Stbalbach 17:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense on stilts. Tha pages load just as fast and it looks much better than the other. Windows is what takes up all of your bandwidth. I've been using it all over the place.--Lacatosias 18:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian proposal

message: This template currently looks like this:
:Main article: foo
However, this is too easily overlooked by users. Therefore, I propose to make it more obvious, either like this:
:Main article: foo
or by adding color to it, like this:
:Main article: foo
I'd like to hear what people think of this, and of course other proposals are welcome. If people agree, then this change would also apply to similar templates, such as (insert list here)
:Actually, keep in mind that the template already has color in it—in the form of links. Also keep in mind that the template is just about always used right before a giant, bolded, extremely obvious and clear-to-see section header. What the template really currently looks like is:
===Miscellaneous section===
:Main article: Article
Bit better, ne? I have to say, though, that the Christmas-themed template is enormously tempting. That's what Wikipedia needs more of: holiday cheer and festivity!!! -Silence 01:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Is that a vote?  If so, I vote to leave the template in its current state . . . as of 03:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout proposal

message: :Main article: Article
Bit better, ne? I have to say, though, that the Christmas-themed template is enormously tempting. That's what Wikipedia needs more of: holiday cheer and festivity!!! -Silence 01:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Is that a vote?  If so, I vote to leave the template in its current state . . . as of 03:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous section

message: The template now supports multi-articles. Any problems/concerns please discuss. Note that the template substitution guideline is a new guidelines, as of November-- has there been discussion about why main should be exempt from substitution? --Stbalbach 23:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. What I do know is that I find it hard-coded more often than not, either by subst or by hand-coding - indeed, I first looked at this page after someone radically altered the look of the template and half a page had hard-coded Main articles and half had s. And I really don't see how insisting on transcluding a template which doesn't involve a category contributes other than to server strain. - SoM 23:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It prevents the type of situation that you described (not that I advocate altering the template's appearance).  Under the new setup, it also prevents the insertion of superfluous code.  —Lifeisunfair 00:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: A small discussion is archived here.  —Lifeisunfair 00:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Multi-article main

message: A user copied a lot of data from this discussion page into the main template article/space -- I have a couple questions/concerns. 1) Isnt this what talk pages are for? Turning the main template space into a free-form article seems like a risky venture. Cant we just tell people to read the talk page for usage information? Thats been done for years. 2) What assurances do we have this does not have a negative impact on server performance? This is one of the most commonly called templates on Wikipedia and its size recently has increased 10x --Stbalbach 03:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" etc. etc.. in main template space 

message: In the interest of finding a balance between utility and resource usage, Ive reduced the new multi-main down to 5 articles from the previous 20. While wikipedia does have seemingly endless disk and bandwidth, it is constrained by CPU and memory -- empty variables are still allocated memory and require some processing with each instance of the template. Since %99.99 of the time it will be either one or two articles, allocating memory (even a pointer) for 20 with each call is a rich use of resources, for this very popular template. As well, it's hard to imagine a need for more than 5 main articles in a section that isnt a bigger problem with the article design. For those special cases that may justify it, I would suggest they be hard-coded, in the interest of streamlining the template, or create a new special template "main-huge" or somthing. --Stbalbach 15:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Five articles is a reasonable quantity, given the fact that our earlier setup (which incorporated , ,  and ) accommodated between one and four (with usage of  and  being relatively uncommon).  I would, however, like to hear from a MediaWiki expert regarding the extent to which superfluous coding depletes resources.  If this is a major issue, it might be wise to restore the original  (restricting multi-article references to ).  We might even want to restore the original , and create a new  template (with redirects from  and ) for the relatively uncommon citations of three or more main articles.  —Lifeisunfair 16:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can agree with that. Also, I'm developing a new if that have no own calls, this will remove one level of meta-calls (It's the outer level, so it's a lot so say), you can change Template talk:If →AzaToth 17:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *We have now enginered a new if, we have not yet replaced it, becaus we want to have consensus, also someone mediawiki technical should comment, if the new version is better than the old one.
See Template talk:If#New if, and pleas comment. Personally I think the new one is better for the server, because there is no meta calls from it as the current one have. →AzaToth 22:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Make it 9 to keep it in single digits ;-) —Phil | Talk 16:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I object to that. Looking at the Hindu article the problem is someone using the {main} template in place of actually writing. Its a single sentence. Is there some reason those 7 links can't be turned into English prose? It would be rare to ever see more than 5 main articles. There needs to be a cap, both for resources and for encouraging good article design. Five seem more than enough, and if there is a rare case it can be justified, simply hand code it.  --Stbalbach 16:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, you go and rewrite that article. In the meantime I'm reinstating the higher limit so that the article in its current state is not broken. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, this was already discussed earlier and agreed on by a number of people that there is a balance between resource usage and article design and number of variables. I mean why not just make it 50..100? There will always be someone mis-using the template. That doesn't mean the rational for the limit is incorrect. --Stbalbach 17:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was reduced from 20 down to 5 because the then-current version used a conditional method which was far less efficient and did indeed put a huge strain on resources even when the higher-numbered parameters were not being used. The current version uses a far more efficient system and can manage the higher number of parameters much better. In the meantime, my point is that a template shouldn't simply be changed in such a way that existing client articles are broken by it: the articles should be adjusted first. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. Theres no way to know the scope of it for sure. So we'll add a warning message when the limit is exceeded so the problem will show up and can be corrected. If its a dozen or two, its better to correct the articles. If its 100s of 1000s then we should adjust upwards to grandfather those in. But this 5 limit has been in place a couple weeks now and this is the first anything has shown up. Its probably not a big issue. --Stbalbach 17:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: added a warning now, also all atricles that this warning is shown is added to   :Category:Usage of main with more than 5 parameters →AzaToth 17:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's brilliant. Thank you! --Stbalbach 18:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Main resources/number of variables

message: I'm going to expand it for Hindu Nationalism which requires 7.
I'll expand to 10 to be on the safe side.
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Make it 9 to keep it in single digits ;-) —Phil | Talk 16:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I object to that. Looking at the Hindu article the problem is someone using the {main} template in place of actually writing. Its a single sentence. Is there some reason those 7 links can't be turned into English prose? It would be rare to ever see more than 5 main articles. There needs to be a cap, both for resources and for encouraging good article design. Five seem more than enough, and if there is a rare case it can be justified, simply hand code it.  --Stbalbach 16:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, you go and rewrite that article. In the meantime I'm reinstating the higher limit so that the article in its current state is not broken. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, this was already discussed earlier and agreed on by a number of people that there is a balance between resource usage and article design and number of variables. I mean why not just make it 50..100? There will always be someone mis-using the template. That doesn't mean the rational for the limit is incorrect. --Stbalbach 17:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was reduced from 20 down to 5 because the then-current version used a conditional method which was far less efficient and did indeed put a huge strain on resources even when the higher-numbered parameters were not being used. The current version uses a far more efficient system and can manage the higher number of parameters much better. In the meantime, my point is that a template shouldn't simply be changed in such a way that existing client articles are broken by it: the articles should be adjusted first. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. Theres no way to know the scope of it for sure. So we'll add a warning message when the limit is exceeded so the problem will show up and can be corrected. If its a dozen or two, its better to correct the articles. If its 100s of 1000s then we should adjust upwards to grandfather those in. But this 5 limit has been in place a couple weeks now and this is the first anything has shown up. Its probably not a big issue. --Stbalbach 17:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: added a warning now, also all atricles that this warning is shown is added to   :Category:Usage of main with more than 5 parameters →AzaToth 17:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's brilliant. Thank you! --Stbalbach 18:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion required 

message: Hi-- I'm not a template coder, but we need some additional code for this template, when there are greater-than five variables it displays a message saying that the template only supports up to five variables, so that it doesnt "break" when someone exceeds the variable limit. --Stbalbach 17:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template coding help 

message: Could we please get rid of the ampersand and restore the good ol' "and" which made us look like an encyclopedia rather than a magazine title? Or simply replace it with a tried-and-true comma? At the very least, I think "Main article: X & Y" should be changed to "Main article: X, Y", to be consistent with all the other templates—See2, Seealso2, etc. Come on, I can't be alone here. An isolated and unwelcome minority, sure, but not alone. -Silence 09:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: uses & (and now also ) →AzaToth 10:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed - we should use "and"; I would when writing it in prose. --SPUI (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Main articles: Article, Article, Article , Article and Article
→AzaToth 04:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  & 

message: Could you add :eo:Ŝablono:Ĉefa, :fr:Modèle:Détails, :pl:Szablon:Main? This should be added with noinclude tag: eo:Ŝablono:Ĉefa fr:Modèle:Détails pl:Szablon:Main. Thanks, Googlpl 20:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done . Dmcdevit·t 19:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are now 2 "noinclude" sections in the template. To improve performance, can we condense the noinclude material into one section? I would do it myself, but the page is protected.  --Stbalbach 19:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: Need help with editing the template, to move this section of the template:
 noinclude
 {esoteric}
 /noinclude
..into this section:
 noinclude
 [eo:Ŝablono:Ĉefa]
 [fr:Modèle:Détails]
 [pl:Szablon:Main]
 /noinclude
..so that it looks like:
 noinclude
 {esoteric}
 [eo:Ŝablono:Ĉefa]
 [fr:Modèle:Détails]
 [pl:Szablon:Main]
 /noinclude
There only needs to be a single "noinclude" section, not two. Thanks. --Stbalbach 05:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, check and make sure I did it right. Sorry for no seeing this comment earlier. Dmcdevit·t 21:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks! --Stbalbach 16:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for help 

message: Please see User talk:Freakofnurture/Main, where my proposed version is demonstrated.  It would require no changes to the manner in which the template is called from the article, and it would also properly use serial commas and the word "and".  As for the category presently invoked when the parameters exceed five, I've found no way to retain it with hiddenStructure code, however I find this to be a moot point, because:
#There are no article pages currently passing 6+ parameters to the existing template.
#If one section of an article links to more than five "main" articles, it would probably be best to divide it into smaller sections anyway.
#If, for some reason, an article does need to reference 6+ related articles in the same line, the template could be without causing additional overhead per use.
If nobody objects to this replacement within a day or two I'm going to go ahead and change the code myself.  I assure you, the majority of readers will not notice the difference. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ([ TALK]) 04:29, Jan. 8, 2006
:I would only be supportive of new code if the appearance looks the same, and the functionality is the same. Once its in place (without Qif), if we want to have further discussions about appearance or functionality changes thats fine, but those are separate issues that need wider participation (see this page archives). The whole reason this Template was protected was to prevent people from changeing the appearance of the template without achieving consensus first which has been a long ongoing struggle, to say the least, to keep the template stable in appearance in functionality. --Stbalbach 06:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to achieve the same functionality without meta-templates 

message: Well I went ahead and did it.  Meta-templates are no longer an issue here, it's merely a high-use template (2,336).  Due to technical limitations  longer conditionally references the :Category:Usage of main with more than 5 parameters, which was empty at the time I made the change to the template (and should be sent to CFD). Also, the new version uses "and" instead of & and makes proper use of the serial comma ("A, B, and C" and not "A, B & C" as before). Other than that, the song remains the same. Have a nice day. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ([ TALK]) 08:01, Jan. 8, 2006
:Very nice job, Freak!  Everything looks perfect on my end.  —David Levy 21:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  IBTD very strongly, "test the effect without CSS" is a basic step. It clobbers numerous pages for all old browsers and for anybody who decides or is forced to disable CSS for whatever reasons. That was no slight change, quite the contrary. Omniplex 08:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template has changed, but only slightly

message: Now there appears to be an extra white in all the articles that it's in, such as Madagascar. Any way to fix it? --Khoikhoi 20:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "extra white," and what browser are you using?  —David Levy 21:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firefox. I'm talking about an extra white space right below the template in the artices. See Madagascar. --Khoikhoi 22:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just performed a direct comparison, and I see that the new version contains slightly more blank space above and below the notice.  I actually think that it looks better this way.  —David Levy 23:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the extra whitespace looks awful. There's too much. Can someone please put it back the way it was yesterday? ~MDD4696 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the whitespace, above or below? Can you remove it by removing any blank lines in the article above or below the template? --Stbalbach 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the extra whitespace doesn't look good.  It makes it harder to read since there is less content on the page.  I would suggest using inline style parameters such as margin-top and margin-bottom to reduce the whitespace. -- Jeff3000 14:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened? 

message: Please restore the ":" indentation. Main template has had an indentation from the day it was created, and thousands of Wikipedia editors have chosen to use this template based on that appearance. No one was consulted about an appearance change. In brief, this template has a long history of looking a certain way, and before it changes, consensus needs to be reached. No such consensus has been reached.  --Stbalbach 22:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please restore indentation 

message: Shouldn't be a full stop at the end of sentence, like: 
Main articles: Article.
Visor 20:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there shouldn't be; it isn't a sentence.  —David Levy 21:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have been reinserted when it was migrated to the new ParserFunctions syntax. I'd remove it but it's protected... Hairy Dude 23:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full stop? 

message: As a non admin, I would like to request modification of the template as shown in this (diff). Intention: throw less {{{}}} stuff onto clients (look at the html source of Dune (computer game) for an example). --Adrian Buehlmann 10:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modification request 

message: I'm getting strange output from the    template. For example, in the plot section of the article Les Misérables, the wikicode    produces "Main articles:
Plot of Les Misérables, and , and , and , and ".
I'm using jaws for windows 5.1 and Internet Explorer 6.0, with no control of CSS on the screen reader's end. What is going on, and how can it be fixed? Graham/pianoman87 talk 13:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange output 

message: I'd like to propose reverting this article back to the version which utilized meta-templates (for discussion, see WP:AUM). The CSS hack used, while good intentioned, results in poor output over non-CSS aware browsers and accessibility issues for the disabled. (See also: Template talk:Taxobox). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought there was a larger discussion going on (somewhere) about this in general since it effects more than this single template. There seem to be good reasons for it, and good reasons against it. --Stbalbach 18:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see some of the discussion regarding accessibility at MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css. You can see a comment from Brion at WP:AUM (on the main page at the moment, and on the talk page) where he explains that meta-templates are not proven to be harmful. It is my belief that the accessibility issues trump any imagined server issues. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed reversion

message: If template is now changed from  to . -- Paul foord 23:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You still use .  I just changed the template so that it only accepts one parameter.  Netoholic tells me he replaced all plural uses of this template with Template:Main articles; an impressive feat.  dbenbenn | talk 06:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to document change at top of page

message: Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:
 vi:Tiêu bản:Chính
Thanks.
 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki link to vi: 

message: As I commented on Template talk:Main articles, there is a difference in indention between  and , causing an inconsistent look in articles that use both. Bloodshedder 05:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is in how they are coded. Why are they coded in different ways, do they need to be? I know the current {main} code is for some good reasons. -- Stbalbach 05:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indention difference

message: I am confused by the description given under Comparison with related templates. Suppose we have an article Mona Lisa with a brief section Mona Lisa#Her smile, and a long and detailed article The mystery of Mona Lisa's smile. If I take the given description literally, we should
# put "" at the top of section Her Smile, or
# put "" at the top of the article The mystery of Mona Lisa's smile.
;Questions:
* So am I correct in thinking that this template has two uses that are precisely each others' dual?
* Does the italic or here mean exclusive or, OR can we have links in both directions simultaneously?
The first use looks identical to the use of Template:Details as described in the documentation of its talk page, which is different from the use described here under Comparison with related templates.
* Which is the correct use?
LambiamTalk 00:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: Does an administrator want to replace
* 
with
*  deprecated — use Template:Further
Usgnus 23:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Scott Davis Talk 23:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See deprecated