Template talk:Usage

Noinclude I

Could this template be made to automatically wrap the message in <noinclude> tags? Or would that not be technically possible? --Emufarmers 22:12, 20 May 2006 (PDT)

Nope, it wasn't working for me earlier. Feel free to try, though. I may have been doing it wrong. (Lord knows my wiki markup is weak.)--Ponytailguy 22:27, 20 May 2006 (PDT)

Oop, now my mind is whirring; two things here: First, do we generally want to use the <includeonly> tag on, say, a template, to keep it from being categorized? I thought we'd generally want to have those sorts of things categorized, and sorted to be at the front of the list so as to be easily available? Second, in the style guide and such, the usage of templates is provided by a link to the template's talk page. If we start using usage tags/notes/thingies, how should we change those links to properly mesh with this new scheme? --Emufarmers 22:19, 20 May 2006 (PDT)

First half: that hasn't been decided yet, but in cases where you have to specifically say "exclude these pages from the category", that might be for the best. Stay tuned!

Second half: Links have already been fixed, mate ;) --Ponytailguy 22:27, 20 May 2006 (PDT)

Blargh, Sagacious modified the tl template...I bow to your sneakiness, Teeg. You are my new god! :o (That was intended to be ironic sincerity, by the way, not sarcasm, in case it came out sounding wrong.) --Emufarmers 22:33, 20 May 2006 (PDT)

Since these notes are only visible on the actual template page, I would assume that they should be written more with an eye towards making the template easier to apply properly, rather than being written...Well...Encyclopedically? --Emufarmers 22:50, 20 May 2006 (PDT)

Yep. I'll be updating the usage usage notes in a second, so that should clear up some confusion. --Ponytailguy 07:28, 22 May 2006 (PDT)

Colour tweaking

Per Fannon's request, I've turned it blue to explore different colour options. I like it, but it makes the links hard to pick out, which IMO overbalances the cosmetic appeal. I'll try maroon in a few minutes (gonna let people see it and ponder it for now.) --Ponytailguy 07:45, 22 May 2006 (PDT)

Agreed, links are near impossible to pull out of there. —Sivius^(T/C) 15:14, 22 May 2006 (PDT)

Go go gadget maroon! That any better? --Ponytailguy 15:42, 22 May 2006 (PDT)

Tiz not maroony enuff...one sec... --Sagacious ^(talk) 15:45, 22 May 2006 (PDT)

Ok you can shoot me now - but to me - that is maroon ;-) --Sagacious ^(talk) 15:54, 22 May 2006 (PDT)

Harsh on the eyes (or atleast mine). I'm a fan of the old grey. —Sivius^(T/C) 15:56, 22 May 2006 (PDT)

Me, too :-/ --Ponytailguy 15:58, 22 May 2006 (PDT)

What about that lol? --Sagacious ^(talk) 16:04, 22 May 2006 (PDT)

Uh. :-/ --Ponytailguy 16:06, 22 May 2006 (PDT)

Seriously, dark bold colors aren't the way to go with it. Light faded colors are best for this, IMO. —Sivius^(T/C) 16:09, 22 May 2006 (PDT)

This any better? --Sagacious ^(talk) 16:12, 22 May 2006 (PDT)

I tried to fade the maroon, but it keeps coming out more brown than anything. —Sivius^(T/C) 17:00, 22 May 2006 (PDT)

Subst

So after some administrator discussion, we think we'll move the usage notes off of a handful of pages and onto their talk pages... specifically, the test, warning and butchery templates, which are usually called to a user's talk page with {{subst}} for clarity. Just figured I should send up a flare for you guys. :) --Ponytailguy 08:57, 26 May 2006 (PDT)

Subst is good. —Sivius^(T/C)`

__NOEDITSECTION__

I added a noeditsection because when this was included, the edit link was to the main template - an accident waiting to happen. However, I don't know anything about this, and want to make sure that the builtin variable won't mess up all other sections on a page. If someone could verify that this is correct, I'd appreciate it. --AtteSmythe 11:46, 6 July 2006 (PDT)

Nevermind! My edit booch appears to confirm that this is ok. --AtteSmythe 11:47, 6 July 2006 (PDT)

Error rectification

I added some extra parameters which should make it more obvious if somebody's not nowiki'd a | symbol, as it messes up the whole template. If someone could please check I haven't completely messed something up, I'd be grateful. --Piplicus 03:57, 28 October 2006 (PDT)

Noinclude II

I was wondering if it would be possible to, perhaps, do something like <includeonly><noinclude></includeonly> --------- <includeonly></noinclude></includeonly> so that, when used, it is already wrapped in the <noinclude> tags? -- Thefirstdude ^(t/c) 19:25, 20 March 2007 (PDT)

Give it a try, if it works then that would be great. --Guppymomma 06:43, 30 March 2007 (PDT)

Loose Tags

So, I've noticed since the last update, there's been a </font> tag hanging around the end of the usage notes where they appear. It's been bugging me as to where it's coming from, and I can't for the life of me work it out. I suspect (but I'm not certain) that the red-coloured 2 to 6 parameters is the cause, and possibly some sort of ifdef is the solution. I've really no idea, though. --Belthazar451 04:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't appear on every Usage, but on the trinket templates for example. I did some testing and there are two things that cause the dangling tag. The first is trying to include a paragraph inside the font: <font...>...<p>...</font>

The second is more specific to the My trinket templates, the structure looks like

{{usage|1=
...
<div>
...
}}
</div>

Getting this right and removing the <p> made the dangling </font> dissappear (example: User:Alfwyn/Sandbox/My trinkets/Gemstone ring) --Alfwyn 10:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm obviously old & senile, what do we need to do to fix this? I was just looking at the recently created Nutcracker trinket template and seeing the stray font tag. --Guppymomma 03:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What we need is a hundred and forty individual edits of the My Trinket template pages. It's on the Nutcracker page because Sharktail (like me) just copied and pasted another template and simply changed the names. I'll do it if I ever get around to it. =) --Belthazar451 04:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the lightbulb has turned on. I'll bot myself and take care of this. 'k, fixed. --Guppymomma 16:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha. Silly me, I thought the proposed change below was to add the <p> to the actual usage template, not the usage of the usage template. Or am I still just confused. Maybe you should all just ignore me. --Guppymomma 17:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the way I understood it. I really hope we don't vote on cosmetic changes of the usage text of a single template. --Alfwyn 17:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's the usage text of a hundred and forty templates, but yes, the issue is in the usage of the usage template. Voting below was on whether to add the </p> tag to all the My Trinket templates, or remove the <p>. Either way, you've fixed the floating tag issue, yay. =D --Belthazar451 20:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I was simply trying to get an opinion of what people would prefer cosmetically. No this isn't a policy issue to vote on but I don't really want to see all kinds of edits on something if people just want it back to the way it used to be. Anyway, I've made the changes and Guppy fixed all of the trinket pages (I haven't checked them all so don't quote me on that). -- Cedarwings ^(talk) 20:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand where the problem is. In the My Trinket template pages someone (probably a long time ago) added a <p> at the start of the usage notes to add a half line of spacing between the statement inserted from the usage template and the start of the actual usage notes and this has been copied over and over again to all the other My Trinket template pages. Solution is pretty simple, all the My Trinket pages need to be edited. The question is, do we want that extra space between the statement automatically added from the usage template and the beginning of the actual usage notes to appear on all usage notes? In other words, do we want usage notes to look like version 1 or 2 below?

{{Usage|<p></p>Version 1}} produces:

Usage

---

These usage notes will not be included in articles bearing this template.

Version 1

{{Usage|Version 2}} produces

Usage

---

These usage notes will not be included in articles bearing this template.
Version 2

Essentially the problem still is on the My Trinket pages that either need the <p> removed or a </p> added immediately after it so it would read <p></p>. So, how do people wish to proceed with this? Have the usage template as version 1 or version 2? Personally I don't mind the extra space as it helps divide the template from the actual notes. Once we know this we can proceed to fix all the My Trinket pages.

Version 1

Support -- Cedarwings ^(talk) 07:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Support --Alfwyn 12:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Support being pretty. --Guppymomma 16:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Other

Personally, I'm indifferent. =) --Belthazar451 12:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Ouch, including the template here disabled section editing. As for the template edits, I would combine some of them with changing lightgreen to light green. --Alfwyn 12:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

All made better. Ish. --Belthazar451 12:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)