Template talk:Category main article

message: Instead of the link "category" going to Wikipedia:Categorization it should go to Portal:Contents/Categorical index. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, it should define the term, not go to a large index. That might be useful in another way, or accessed off WP:CAT, but not the primary target.--William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Wikipedia:FAQ/Categories? This is aimed at readers rather than editors and we should cater predominately for readers in this instance. The current link used is solely for editors. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, and disagree with the contents of the FAQ. Who decided these were frequently asked? And some of the answers are misleading or wrong. If there are suggestions for improving WP:CAT, they should be discussed on its Talk.--William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we take the link out entirely? In the meantime Wikipedia:FAQ/Categories can be fixed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to Portal:Contents/Categorical index

message: The current template  allows links to only one article. I'd like to suggest modifying the template to allow links to multiple articles, as  does. Here is the suggested new template. This is what it would like:
*No parameters (no change from current behaviour): 
*One parameter (no change from current behaviour): 
*Two parameters (new feature): 
*Three or more parameters (new feature): 
My suggestion is to modify the current template, not create a new one. Regards—G716 <T·C> 22:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be an example of a category with multiple articles? ZooFari 00:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion: allow links to multiple articles

message: I have created the Help:Categories pages - part of a series of short pages to help readers rather than editors. A list can be seen at :Category:Reader help. I would like to see the word "category" linking to Help:Categories rather than Wikipedia:Categorization. This has been discussed in the section above as well. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Change link

message: At present this template has a link from the word "category" going to Wikipedia:Categorization. The template is in high use in content categories and therefore visible to readers. Wikipedia:Categorization is of interest to editors and of very little interest to readers. I have created a page at Help:Categories as a simple guide for readers who are not interested in the high level of detail about categorisation and editing needed for editors. I would like the link changed to go to Help:Categories. After all, we are here to serve the reader. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Help:Category is for editors and Help:Categories is for readers. We are here to create a resource for readers. When a reader clicks on the link created by the catmore template they would expect to find out info on categories as a WP navigation tool and not a page about the nuances of editing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The RfC says WP:Category is for editors, not Help:Category. Are they both editor-centric in your opinion? To me, the lede in Help:Category seems like it would be helpful to readers and I would think that that page could be expanded to be more relevant to readers if needed. I think I like your idea, but I'm not a fan of the additional help page. —Ost (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected Help:Categories to Help:Category and merged the small amount of content from Help:Categories to Help:Navigation. I suggest linking this template to Wikipedia:FAQ/Categories instead. Gareth Aus (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have undone the redir. Lets get a bit more discussion before it it is redirected (essentially a deletion). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Categorization and Help:Category are both editor-centric. We need a simple explanation about categories for readers who are not interested in edidting. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC: Change link from Wikipedia to Help namespace

message: #Support. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Yay

message: *Help:Category already exists; Why create a new page at Help:Categories? —Ost (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Help:Category is for editors and Help:Categories is for readers. We are here to create a resource for readers. When a reader clicks on the link created by the catmore template they would expect to find out info on categories as a WP navigation tool and not a page about the nuances of editing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The RfC says WP:Category is for editors, not Help:Category. Are they both editor-centric in your opinion? To me, the lede in Help:Category seems like it would be helpful to readers and I would think that that page could be expanded to be more relevant to readers if needed. I think I like your idea, but I'm not a fan of the additional help page. —Ost (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected Help:Categories to Help:Category and merged the small amount of content from Help:Categories to Help:Navigation. I suggest linking this template to Wikipedia:FAQ/Categories instead. Gareth Aus (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have undone the redir. Lets get a bit more discussion before it it is redirected (essentially a deletion). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Categorization and Help:Category are both editor-centric. We need a simple explanation about categories for readers who are not interested in edidting. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I propose moving this template to , which is now a redirect to this template. Once that is completed, I would have a bot update the links. Phase 2 would be to move  to . The rationale is that "for more information" connotes "catmore", while "the main article" connotes "catmain". The two templates are basically syntax compatible, and it is just the wording the differs, so there shouldn't be any major problems (e.g., accidental reverts or viewing old revisions). Does anyone have any opinions on this matter? Or is there an even better name to use for these two templates? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support the renames of these templates. The text of this template is The main article for this category is Foo, so it would make more sense if this template were named Catmain. Once that's done, it would only be logical for  to be moved to . — ξxplicit 21:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also support for the same reasons given above. We should consider similar renames for ,  and . PC78 (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

text: A question: Why the space? catmain would seem to fit the template syntax better than cat main, I'd think?. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 20:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a couple reasons, (1) the space does match the recent renaming trend, e.g., . More importantly, there would otherwise be a name collision, since it would mean moving catmore2 over catmore, which already exists. By moving "catmore2" to "cat more" and "catmore" to "cat main", both moves can be completed at the same time. I, otherwise, have no real opinion on the space vs. no space issue. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename this template

message: Cat main and main have different styling and syntax. Perhaps they should be harmonized? --Bsherr (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The syntax template seems to be compatible with , in that if this template were redirected to  all the transclusions would function. However,  has options not available in this template (e.g., changing the link appearance, or linking to more than one article). When I added the linking option to , I tried to match the syntax used by main. If we were to add the option to link to more than one article to this template and/or to , we could then merge . I believe there was some resistance to this before, which is why  was created as a fork. It seems like a sensible idea to me to merge as many of these templates as possible, or as many as make sense to merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean whether the text should be a complete sentence, as it is here, or should use a colon, as Main does. Is one or the other more common for hatnotes? --Bsherr (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. However the principles (whterh they oppose or support each other I'm not sure) would seem to be: "conformity is good" and "natural sentences are preferable". I believe the colon usage was probably introduced to support the list, and it does indeed work better in my opinion when three or more "main" pages are referred too, I would however suggest that this is a very small percentage of cases. Rich Farmbrough, 09:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I would support this, there seems no good reason to have three templates here, when one will do. Rich Farmbrough, 09:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Main also supports the article/page dichotomy (now for being called from categories too). Rich Farmbrough, 09:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Harmonizing with Main?

message: Can someone please change "article" to "page" in the message? The main page for the category is not necessarily an article, it could be a page in the Wikipedia namespace, a portal, a help page etc. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems fairly uncontroversial. I will make the change, but please revert/complain/ping me if it is controversial. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

text: How about a "type=" parameter, with the default being "article"? It would be possible to put in a namespace check, but that would be more complicated, especially with the possibility for multiple "main" articles/pages. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A type parameter is a good idea. The default ought to be article, since this will most often be employed for content purposes rather than project purposes. --Bsherr (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a bit unnecessary to allow anything to replace "article". I can't think of anything other than "page" that would need to be there. Perhaps changing the parameter to "|article=no" or something. Otherwise it may lead to inconsistency, mistakes or vandalism if people can stick anything in there. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I could do it that way as well. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I think "main" articles/pages in excess of one or two would indicate a design flaw in one’s category hierarchy. ―cobaltcigs 12:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to agree. Note that the parser magic referred to above is already present in . Rich Farmbrough, 09:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (M.A.,PH.D.,LL.D.,D.LITT.,D.SC.,BARRISTER-AT-LAW)
Gentle1word by manish (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Skier Dude (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request on 1 January 2012

message: Currently this template has a link to Wikipedia:Category which is an extensive page all about category guidelines and includes detail on editing. Most readers will not be interested in all that detail. I would like to recommend a change in have it linked to Help:Categories. It is a short, simple succinct page about categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sensible, and no opposition to the idea, so  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for a new link

message: During discussions for a category pages MOS (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Category pages) the topic of when this template should be used came up. A case where it is of no use and a source of confusion is when there are either very few or no subcategories (and the category has an associated topic of the same name). Having {cat main} in these cases is redundant, and having a bolded link and a nearby unbolded link in the category contents is confusing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that this fairly represents the consensus, which is still emerging, as far as I can see. So far two editors have spoken out in favour of the view above, while three editors have spoken out in favour of the view that the template should always be used, if a main article exists for a category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage

message: *Request: Replace source code with full sandbox code:  (includes document part)
*Change: Unbolded the target page. This is just a hatnote. -DePiep (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, seems uncontroversial. This can be reverted on request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please restore bolding. This is a hatnote template, but it is being used as much more: on many category pages,  supplements or constitutes the category description. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bolding restored. EVula // talk// ☯// 00:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: ­This redirect needs Rcats (redirect category templates) added. Please modify it as follows:
*from this...
#REDIRECT Template:Cat main
*to this...
#REDIRECT Template:Cat main

*
Template  is a shortcut for the  template, which is itself a shortcut used to add categories to redirects. Thank you in advance! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Redrose64! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 03:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Rcats needed

message: are you gonna switch this template to the lua module? FYI: One difference between this template and the module is that in the template all links are bold, while in the module they are not. --Nullzero (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd need to make a new module, but it shouldn't be too hard to use the existing ones as a template. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, shouldn't Module:Main do it already? --Nullzero (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not quite. Now written at Module:Cat main. You can test it out with . — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks good, so when will we replace the template with lua version? --Nullzero (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point, I had forgotten about this. :) I've added some new test cases and deployed it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Module:Main]]

message: I saw it used in regular articles . Fgnievinski (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Error if not called in a category page

message: Please note the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 17#Cat main, about an article space redirect to this template. The nominator thinks that if someone doesn't pass an article to the template that it links to Cat main, so the redirect was therefore created. I don't know if this is actually the case, so someone who knows needs to comment at the RfD. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion notice

message: I would like to see this do a page-existence test, and if a) only one article is specified and it is a redlink, or b) multiple are specified and all are redlinks, for the output to report something like the following: "No such article seems to exist.  If it exists under a different name, please correct this template. If no appropriate article exists yet, you can create it!", with an article creation link, I guess going to the WP:Article Wizard, since last I looked we're not letting anons create all-new pages in mainspace any longer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature to encourage article creation 

message: I just created Template:Topic cat, because I think it is helpful for readers and editors beginning to navigate the Wikipedia category tree, and I imagine it could be useful for bots trying to figure out which categories diffuse and which ones don't. I am considering adding a  to Template:Topic cat to integrate the functionality of , and am looking for thoughts from the editors of this template. Thanks! Daask (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Topic cat 

message: Why is this template separate from ?  seems to have all of the functionality of this template except for a few minor differences in output. Any insight into this matter at the ongoing discussion at Template talk:Main#Category namespace would be appreciated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why separate from Template:Main? 

message: I'm trying to untangle the overlap between  and . Please participate in discussion at . Thanks,  16:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extricating category functionality from Template:Main 

message: Sabse Bada Kalakar is showing an error ("Lua error in Module:Cat_main at line 43: attempt to index a nil value") due to recent changes here. It is caused by  near the end of the article. Same at Frames Production. I'm hoping someone will investigate. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a look and the problem is due to use of square brackets:in Template:Frames Productions—omitting them would fix this problem. However, I'm wondering if Module:Cat main should either strip out the square brackets or give a better error message if the page name is invalid (i.e. mw.title.new(page) at line 43 gives nil). Pinging recent editors to the module: . Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made that error (using square brackets) innumerable times and am used to the fix. Experience is key. I'm not sure it is a worthwhile endeavor to create custom error messages for all the different ways an editor can cause failures (though there are error tracking categories in many places). Soon, novices will be expecting such hand-holding everywhere. Mainline code is complicated enough, we don't want to complexify the error paths as well. This particular error occurs for many templates. Perhaps a common templating errors section could be added to Help:A quick guide to templates? Dpleibovitz (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

text:  There seem to be so few of these errors (I fixed that one and two more, and am not aware of any others), that it's not worth doing anything. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lua problem 

message: The redirect Template:Mainw has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  MClay1 (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Template:Mainw]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — mw (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 December 2023