Template talk:Main

message: ==="which is not useful"===
Why is it written "This template should also not be used in lead sections. A lead section is always a summary of its own article, not any other; as such, the only appropriate target for a  link is the article itself, which is not useful."? --Obsuser (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Small corrections of instructions

message: Why is it written "This template should also not be used in lead sections. A lead section is always a summary of its own article, not any other; as such, the only appropriate target for a  link is the article itself, which is not useful."? --Obsuser (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "which is not useful"

message: Also, "The latter is used when the section expounds a specific aspect of the topic instead of summarizing its article." doesn’t make much sense. It should be rather "The latter is used when the section expounds a specific aspect of the topic instead of summarizing its general meaning." --Obsuser (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "instead of summarizing its article"

message: I just performed this edit because, while the template recognizes the namespace of normal shortcuts that prefix WP: (and so say "Main page:" rather than "Main article:"), the template does not recognize those to MOS sections that use the shortcut "MOS:". I tried piping the link through the full name but that had no affect either. Can someone add a namespace detect for MOS? Thanks
--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Recognizing "MOS" shortcuts as being in the Wikipedia namespace

message: Where is the actual source of  ? Hddty. (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean Module:Main? Alex|The|Whovian? 08:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: this template was forked to create template:main section which is now being discussed at TfD here.  the primary objection to using this template for sections is that it says "main article" when pointing to a section like this
are there any objections to having it say "main section" instead in the case that it's a section link?
or, having an option to trigger the more verbose, "the main section for this topic is on the page foo, in the section bar"? Frietjes (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: (For context, I started that TfD.) I strongly oppose the "the main section for this topic […]" phrasing; it is verbose when hatnotes should be concise. I weakly oppose the "main section" label. First of all, it's needless: either a linked section is on the same page (making  inappropriate) or on a different page (making "main article" adequate). Second, it adds needless complexity: we'd need to add a whole segment of code that evaluates each item for a number sign ("#") and filters against manual piping (e.g. "C sharpC#", not a section link) and then changes the label accordingly—it's such a small distinction that it's not worth it. Third, even if implemented it'd leave mixed lists (e.g. ) inconsistent—it'd say "main articles" while listing one or more section links.  22:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Fair enough. I can understand not implementing this due to technical considerations, but this outcome unfortunately doesn't address the fact that I won't use this template for section linking in its current state. My only alternative once  is deleted is custom hatnotes, which I don't like to use. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand why we can't do this automatically, but I would think we could have , which would allow the wording to be changed on a case-by-case basis.  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Plastikspork, good idea, sandbox module updated. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd probably always use this template for section linking if the functionality of the  parameter in the current  revision is added to . Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 

message: When you include more than one entry it provides: Main articles: Article1, Article2, and  Article3. Can someone please make an option to remove the oxford comma? This may clash with an article's grammar style. I am not asking for it to be removed as a default, but for say a parameter like |Oxford=no.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Option to remove Oxford comma

message: Hello,
Re: 
The Custom labels are not working for me:
When I try them in Article namespace. I was trying them on the article Breast to create a Main template pointing to Female brest development and Male breast development, using their root article names. Cheers!  {Talk} 12:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Invocation above works for me with breadfoo and winefoo. --Izno (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with Custom labels in Article namespace 

message: Absolute bs to be reverted asap. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , Some wonkiness is occuring with PHP7. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No idea where to say this, but anyone who just changed main/seealso/further to just normal text completely destroyed the purpose of these templates 

message: This template is currently not working in the mobile version (at least in the app), which is kind of disruptive since several lists and articles on major topics include a link to a main article only in some sections, with no text at all (this happens with several lists of fictional characters or the links to discographies and videographies in music artists' articles, for example). --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: phab:T240721. --Izno (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template not working in mobile version 

message: Please change (lines 54 to 58)
if (curNs == 14) or (curNs == 15) then --category/talk namespacesmainForm = isPlural and'The main %ss for this category are %s'or'The main %s for this category is %s'
to
if (curNs == 14) or (curNs == 15) then --category/talk namespacesmainForm = isPlural and'The main %ss for this category are %s.'or'The main %s for this category is %s.'
and, alter the hidden comment fragment at line 6 from
-- main article for this category is xxx". Otherwise, it produces
to
-- main article for this category is xxx." Otherwise, it producesbecause sentences need full stops. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Affected category/talk pages may have to be purged or null-edited to reflect the change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2020 

message: I happened upon  in the section  Bogotá#Ethnic Groups which links to Race and ethnicity in Bogotá, presently an aliased redlink (alias is Human biological diversity and ethnicity in Bogotá).  I checked that there is not some deleted article which used to be there.
I expected there would be a usage note or similar on the template which said "The linked article must exist", otherwise how could the section be a summation or excerpt of it?
—EncMstr (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally not reasonable to link to a non-existent article. --Izno (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it valid for this template to link a non-existent article? 

message: The present italic "main" stylization is meaningless because it doesn't properly denote the "page". Most italic, in Wikipedia implements within article in literature, books, plays, films, pieces, singles... Meanwhile, italicization is meaningless if we implement in all project pages. It is better to restore the previous unitalicized one. The Supermind (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of previous unitalicized typeface 

message: This template, , includes functionality redundant to , which provides functionality for the main page related to some category. We could simplify  by removing the category functionality and always using only  in category-space; notably, this would let us use the simple Module:Labelled list hatnote instead of Module:Main.
If no one objects within a week or so, then I'll take these steps, over a few days:
#Fire up AWB and replace all category-space uses of  with equivalent uses of ; there are few enough uses in category-space to do it semi-manually
#Replace use of Module:Main in  with Module:Labelled list hatnote
#Delete Module:Main as G6 once it's unused
I'm purposely not going through the TfD process here because that looks confusing, as if we intend to delete a major template rather than "renovate" it, which, as far as I can tell, was the only reason the previous TfD failed for the module.
Pinging in these users, who have all previously commented on the TfD or here on this topic: 
Thanks for your interest in this cleanup.  16:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this action. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

text: This seems reasonable.  – Anon423 (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

text: What prevents future use of  in category space? Before the category functionality was added to this template, it was already being used 8000+ times on category pages (per the #Category namespace section above). Is it worth adding namespace detection, either in the wikicode of  or in Module:Labelled list hatnote, or setting up a bot to detect and correct future misuse? --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 17:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In this plan, nothing, for two reasons.First, use of  in category space isn't necessarily misuse—rather, the problem we're avoiding is a template doing something it isn't supposed to do or not doing something it is supposed to do. This discussion establishes that it's simpler to have each template not overlap, so that  doesn't have to do double-duty with different behaviours across namespaces. In turn, an endorsement of this proposal would establish a consensus that  should not have the category behaviour, and the simplest way to maintain pages without leaving the behaviour in  is to replace instances in category-space with .Second, extra code defeats much of the purpose of making this simplification, so we should seek evidence of how much "misuse" is likely before we establish measures to correct it. If it's at most a couple of uses over a month, some manual correction can handle it. If we get, say, ten instances, perhaps introducing an error message is worthwhile. As such, my thought would be to wait and see before adding such functionality.  19:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Those issues were discussed ad nauseum both in the #Category_namespace section above and at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 29#Template:Cat_main, where there was consensus that the uses of  in category space was incorrect, and that "fixing" them was uncontroversial. Those threads are also, incidentally, where the idea for consolidating category functions into  was hatched in the first place. If you look at the latter discussion, you will see that  cleaned up all the cases of  in category space on January 1, 2019, and by January 4 there were already 5 new cases. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 20:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: OK; I hadn't read through all the old discussions. As Special:Search/category:_hastemplate:main shows 1,623 results, we're looking at an average rate of around 1.6 new instances per day over the 1,007 days since January 1, 2019. That suggests an error message is appropriate. You know what … I'll just go ahead and make these changes, including an error message. This is an obvious change and I shouldn't waste everyone's time worrying about forming a perfect consensus.  22:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

text: The real solution is to merge both templates as they are almost identical, with the  difference being that 1) the link is bolded and 2) the option to change from "article" to "page". A  simple merge can do that. So regarding the original question, I oppose any AWB or mass replacement as a pointless and unhelpful solution. Gonnym (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, you're too late. I did the mass replacement of  with  in category-space last night, and I just saw your message after having changed Module:Main to produce an error on categories. Moreover, you're out of date on the "article" vs. "page" distinction as an update I made to Module:Cat main means that both can automatically detect the namespace of their target pages and adjust phrasing accordingly. Further, I disagree that they should be merged, because they are semantically opposite:  is making a link that is more specific than the current article, while  is making a link that is general for the current category. The new status quo is that they are separate hatnotes with disjoint scopes, and therefore inappropriate to merge.  15:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "new status quo". Start a real discussion and actually wait more than 1 day for other editors to join before forcing your opinions. Gonnym (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, that's a fairly standard bold, revert, discuss; I've done bold (I went ahead with a change early, supported to some degree by a partial consensus), you've done revert, let's discuss. Do you have a substantive reason that we ought to merge these templates, besides their superficial similarity? Would you please address my point of the templates being semantically opposite? Why should merging be preferred over the removal of overlap that I was performing?  21:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's now been five days since your objection and one week since I started this discussion. Please either explain your position or stop holding up a fix that otherwise has unanimous consensus to date.  16:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've pretty much explained already in my opposition. You are changing something that works fine for no reason or value. Explain how 2 modules are better than 1? Explain what advantages splitting the code has. Since we are dealing with code and not article content, this isn't a "I LIKE IT" situation or really a head count and comments should be on the code. I don't see any unanimous consensus or even a single discussion here on the merits of the code. @Pppery, as one that nominated this once or twice, do you have anything to add to this? Gonnym (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The templates should either be fully merged (that is, rely solely on namespace detection and redirect  to ), or fully split (what Nihiltres is doing). I guess I weakly prefer splitting to merging, on the grounds that the two templates really don't have anything in common in the implementation. Note that, in Nihiltres' eventual end goal, there aren't , because Module:Main gets deleted (given the level of drama here, I would strongly recommend not G6-ing it and instead properly listing it at TfD) and  uses Module:Labelled list hatnote instead. In fact, what (re)started this whole discussion was MJL wondering why  needed to use its own module at Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)#Hatnote modules.  For what it's worth, I still support the much broader restructure I proposed in 2018, in which hatnote templates don't, as a general rule, have their own module, but I recognized that that idea doesn't have consensus and stopped pushing for it. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If Module:Main gets completely deleted and we don't have 2 modules (which isn't what the /sandbox version is), then I guess the split is slightly-not-as-worse. @Nihiltres is the plan to TfD the Main module? If so, feel free to continue with your changes then. Gonnym (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The starting problem was that  was awkward and did double-duty across two namespaces, with the double-duty being redundant to . As  said, they could either be merged or split; I'm working on "split" because I see the two cases as semantically different. The plan would eventually move to  using Module:Labelled list hatnote instead of Module:Main, so the answer to your question is "yes". Before that can happen, though, Module:Labelled list hatnote will need some minor enhancement to be able to match Module:Main's functionality of using "pages" instead of "articles" if targets are outside the article namespace, but that should be reasonably straightforward to add. In the meantime, my (reverted) edit removed the category-space functionality and introduced an error when used in category-space, to help those still using  to learn to switch.The status quo is that there are three modules: a generalist Module:Labelled list hatnote, Module:Main for , and Module:Cat main for . My goal results in going to two, moving  to use Module:Labelled list hatnote, with no prejudice towards what happens to Module:Cat main except that there shouldn't be any awkward overlap.I agree with  that if there's any dispute remaining over the status of Module:Main we'll go and do a proper TfD.  21:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extricating category functionality 

message: Many Wikipedia editors wrongfully assume that they need to keep the underscores in section links. I suggest that the respective example in this documentation should use a section title with spaces; currently it has a single word only:
* now:  → 
* new:  → 
* not:  →  — Christoph Päper 07:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 10:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 25 October 2022 

message: Is there any option to exclude footnotes? Currently, List of Indigenous peoples uses this template which includes the first paragraph of Indigenous peoples, which uses an . The problem is, the former article uses s and so does not include the respective  template required for . And as such, there's a citation error in it. It would be nice if footnotes could be removed in this template. Does that currently exist? And if not, is there anything that can be done to address this issue? Satricious (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The list page has been updated now. The revision with error can be found . Satricious (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Related:  supports explicitly defining templates that can/cannot be transcluded (e.g. you could do |templates=-efn and no such templates would show up). Would be helpful if this existed for this template too. Satricious (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excluding footnotes 

message: I recently attempted to add  to . This seemed like fairly standard usage to me, but  and then  reverted me, asserting that the link was redundant.
I'd like some clarification, which we could potentially add to the documentation, about consensus on whether or not this template should be used in situations like this. My view is that it should be, since it improves scanability — i.e. if a reader is skimming through the article, as most readers do, it'll be easier for them to notice that a section has its own article if this is present than if they have to start reading the section. Cheers,  talk 17:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Bumping thread.   talk 21:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage question 

message: Hello. I would like to use different text with this template in Slovene Wikipedia for 1 item (glavni članek), for 2 items (glavna članka), and for 3 or more items (glavni članki). The template is located at :sl:Predloga:Glavni članek (please see the source). Could you please advise me on how to tweak the relevant module? Thank you. --TadejM my talk 00:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual number 

message: The problem here is that, there should be a way to exclude interwikis that are not Wikipedia article. Example:Here, the hatnote says that it is an article, while the page on mediawiki.org isn't. I am wondering which template or module does the magic works, and to fix it? Toadette (Happy holiday!) 19:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding interwikis 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists § Should Template:Dynamic list be used in sections that also have Template:Main?.   talk 21:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#Should Template:Dynamic list be used in sections that also have Template:Main?|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists §&nbsp;Should Template:Dynamic list be used in sections that also have Template:Main?]]

message: Description of suggested change:
Delete Broader may be appropriate in this case. from the lead section, as the template Broader is also meant be used in sections
83.168.137.1 (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pppery * it has begun... 15:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 15 February 2024 

message: This feels like a silly question but having a  template in a section of an article does not obviate the need for citations in that section, correct?  
For example, in the War on terror page, the "11 September attacks" section still needs citations even though most all of the claims likely have citations in the "September 11 attacks" page.
It's just that I feel I see it all too commonly that certain sections w/ the main template just have zero citations. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations in sections that have a main article template