Template talk:Details
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Template:Details has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit. |
Contents |
[edit] Format
Disturbing the margin is aesthetically sometimes mandated, but I dispute that it should be done whenever linking to a subarticle. In my view, it really clutters articles when there are several of these templates in rapid succession.
Incidentally, I don't think a distinction between articles and "subarticles" should be made. Often, the article linked to is less "sub" than the article it is being linked from. Since Template:Main now redirects here, I am removing the "sub" modifier. JFW | T@lk 3 July 2005 10:36 (UTC)
- templates like this one shouldn't be used in rapid succession. This template is for article in a hierarchy. If you need something else go to Template talk:main and explain the need for a template siblingarticle. Most probably you should fix by using subarticleof instead of this template in the main article. --MarSch 3 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)
[edit] Use also to link to a section of another article
I suggest the text "For a more detailed treatment of this topic, see [[{{{1}}}]].", or shorter "For details, see [[{{{1}}}]]."; then it can also be used to link to a section of another article.--Patrick 4 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)
Another name is then appropriate: Template:See details.--Patrick 4 July 2005 09:28 (UTC)
- Why would a section want to link to a section of another article in such a prominent way? --MarSch 4 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)
-
- A treatment of the relation of A with B can be in article A or article B; usually one is chosen and in the other one there is a prominent link, with or without summary.--Patrick 4 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)
-
-
- Okay good example. It is more symmetrical however to create a new article for this and use subarticle, but that's just me.--MarSch 4 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Another thing, the term "subarticle" could be understood (without context) as part of an article, instead of article on a subtopic.--Patrick 4 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Definition of "subarticle"
Please define what is a "subarticle". I see that continental drift and plate tectonics are marked as being subarticles of each other. Perhaps a definition would help clarify what relationship is being specified. (SEWilco 5 July 2005 07:30 (UTC))
[edit] subarticle word
Since the word subarticle seems to cause problems. What about two other templates
- {details}: For more details on this topic, see the article {1}.
- {background}: For more background on this topic, see the article {1}.
Please discuss at Wikipedia:Templates_for_Deletion#Other_wording --MarSch 5 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
[edit] TFD
This template was nominated for deletion, but there was no consensus to delete it (even if it came close). Thus it is kept. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005 for details; given the amount of people disliking this template, it is recommended that it be reworded, and/or its usage be reconsidered. Radiant_>|< 08:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merge?
Why not merge this with Template:Background? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Because they have different purposes. When one article contains a summary of another article, the summarizing article refers for more details to the other article with {details}. The summarized article on the other hand uses {background} to indicate it is being summarized somewhere. Quite different. --MarSch 13:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Details" or "detail"
Shouldn't it be: "For more detail on ..."? Can't explain why but it feels better to me; as in "to show in more detail". LambiamTalk 23:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. –Dvandersluis 20:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] template:Background
This has apparently never been adopted, but it is a good deal clearer than "main" To me, "main" implies the basic comprehensive article on a subject, but it seems to be customarily used the other way round, for the subsidiary page with the specifics. It would be nice to have it as an alternative. The preceding discussion here shows that others are also confused. DGG 00:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Make The Template So That It Is Possible To Link To More Than One Article.
As it stands, you can only say:
For more details on this topic, see gay.
You can't say:
For more details on this topic, see gay, homosexuality & gay marriage.
I'm not saying that '&' must be there, we could say 'and' instead, etc., but we need to change it.100110100 02:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- That makes two... I also would like this feature. I use it with the main tag and it would be very helpful on the details tag. Morphh (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Can
Can we change this template so it can have infinite arguments?100110100 07:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
