Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I created a page on Wikia where there were four titles (e.g. ===Title===), and the first two were contained in 'no include' tags, because I didn't want to transclude the introductory text.
On the target page, the transcluded titles still had edit links next to them, but clicking on those edit links caused you to edit one of the two preceding non-transcluded sections, rather than the subsequent two transcluded sections.
Thanks, --219.174.96.57 10:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm being a bit thick but how does one un-transclude. In particular how do I delete categories from my user page? (Ajkgordon 18:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
It doesn't appear possible to tranclude a special page, e.g. Special:Version doesn't pull in the Special:Version page. Is this by design, and is there any way around this?
I just noticed that WP:TRANS redirects here, whereas WP:Trans redirects to a "translator's" page. Consistency is preferred. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I redirected Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits here. Discussion here (not here below). /SvNH 18:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Xenocidic/infobox/status is transcluded on User:Xenocidic/infobox which itself is transcluded onto my userpage, but it doesn't seem to update properly... Is it too deep a recursion? xenocidic (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I am now the third commenter on this page asking how to transclude only a part of an article. The previous two got no answer. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Transcluded content/How to transclude sections only (Broken link 2014 0705)
I would like to transclude an EasyTimeline and treat it as an image with a frame & centering. Is this possible and what would the syntax be? Dhatfield (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a wiki where pages consist of snippets transcluded from different namespaces. Now I would like to format the content differently depending on which namespace the content comes from. So I would like the transcluded text to be enclosed in <div id=namespace> </div> so they may be formatted by CSS.
I know it can be done through a template but I would like to have it in an extension. Is there anything like this?
You may remember I argued a while ago that the best form of summary article is a compilation of transcluded lead sections from main articles. At that time, I transcluded a lead in the United Nations article. It was well accepted until yesterday when someone replaced the transclusion with the actual text. I am discussing this move here. You may want to jump in. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible?— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 10:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to transclude articles with permalinks, so if we transclude with a permalink the article that gets included has always the same version?153.96.133.33 (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is this page in Wikipedia, not in Mediawiki ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.222.101.189 (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm working to take the data from Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Star_Trek and transclude it into this template for use on the main WP:TREK page. Is there a way to limit the transcluded entries to just show the last 25 changes? I've tried about everything I can think of without success. I'd also like to remove userpages / user talk pages from the list as well. -- Aatrek / TALK 16:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Rather than getting the normal text on this page, Firefox 3.0.10 on Linux is putting odd markup in the rendered page. For instance, the first section of this article reads:
[...] Template transclusion is the common way to use template messages, and is implemented by using a template tag, with the form: UNIQ4e7403944272ab47-nowiki-00000000-QINU Occasionally one may want to use a template, [....]
The same Firefox version on OS X renders correctly. -- 74.178.10.234 (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I can confirm this is happening to me under Firefox 3.0.10 on Windows XP SP3and IE6 (haven't updated IE yet...). No idea why, 94.3.174.167 (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I recommend changing "inclusion...into" either into "insertion...into" or "inclusion...within", whichever is more appropriate. Unfree (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, folks. I have read the definition of transclusion and the illustrations and examples of transclusion over and over and over, and I still don't understand what transclusion means. If I use a particular template to create an article or a list by using the Edit links on the template, is that transcluding?
I forgot to include my signature. Kathy (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe the definition of transclusion is just showing the contents of one page inside of your wiki page. That way, as changes are made to the page you are transcluding, then the latest updates will show up on your page as well.
--198.169.188.227 (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think a good example would be a basic spreadsheet that has multiple links to other spreadsheets. For example, on the main spreadsheet, you might add the sum of two cells together (A+B). But cells A and B could be the results of formulas from other spreadsheet files (i.e. multiple layers) and the cells could even link to multiple cells if they're grouped. Maybe the word "transclusion" is just a complicated text-only word to describe the same type of link. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me "transclusion" is just a neologism for "incorporation". Unfree (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice if you could transclude a table row. Dave Yost 13:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Transclusion is a concept developed by Ted Nelson, and some short & appropriate discussion of that would be nice, along to the general WP page on transclusion. KenThomas 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"Along to" makes no sense to me. Does WP stand for Wikipedia? Unfree (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know how many articles have been absolutely transcluded preventing bona fide users and non-logged users from editing typos etc.? This is really outrageous. 212.188.109.218 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Pathology is no longer an example of tranclusion, which is confusing if one goes there to see how it is done. Occuli (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to transclude the whole category list? Ive tried {{:Category:Name}} and {{Category:Name}} and obviously the second one makes the category link - is this at all possible? --137.73.5.25 (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
If the categorytree extension is installed then you can do it by using{{#categorytree:Foo}}. I haven't found a way to do it without some extension or another. 216.27.139.90 (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
If a page is transcluded without transclusion markup, it may cause an unintentional categorization. Any page transcluding it will contain the same category as the original page. Wrap the category markup with <noinclude> tags tags to prevent incorrect categorization.
But what if someone else finds it acceptable? Should the one editor remove the other's <noinclude> tags?
It seems to me the category mechanism should never allow transclusion. That should be left up to each page. Bug fix: implicit <noinclude> tags for all [[Category]] mechanisms. — CpiralCpiral 22:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Help:categorization#Templates and categorization is a partial help to the problem I probably misunderstand. Honestly, I haven't devoted the time to understand the transclusion of categories yet. But I will answer this question of "should never" that I have proposed above, soon enough.
Meanwhile I was able to removed the following from the article:
and replaced it with a link to Help:categorization#Templates and categorization.
— CpiralCpiral 20:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
If a page is transcluded, <noinclude> category declarations. It is important that the transluding page should declare it's own category on its page itself, visibly, in case its category needs to be changed later. Failure to <noinclude> a category declaration on a transcluded page means that the categories namespace is less maintainable, as category declarations are then buried, hidden in a template or other transclusion. The exceptions will be a temporary or maintenance transclusion whose sole purpose is to categorize, such as some template pages. Template pages which categorize themselves show a category declaration wrapped in noinclude tags. Template pages whose purpose is to categorize transcluding pages will have onlyinclude tags around the category declaration. — CpiralCpiral 00:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Notifying those watching this page of this discussion and proposal. Carcharoth (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have come across dozens of pages that are completely transcluded, character by character or word by word, with the ostensible purport of denying casual (unlogged) readers even the possibility of correcting minor typos. This is the Glavlit at its worst. 212.188.109.6 (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Revisiting this thread... today I started working on a personal project to organize and work on sets of related articles. The page structure I'm using goes something like this:
...on and on. I wanted to transclude the subpages into groups, and then transclude them all into the master (see the first few as a live example). However, when I click on many of the Edit links in the master view, I end up editing the {{User:Blaxthos/IBM/Articles}} transclusion. Regardless if my design of doing this is piss poor (it probably is!), I just wanted to poke the capabilities and learn a bit. :) So, is there any way technically (through better methods, or some software switch I don't know about) to make the master view edit links edit the various source material the generates what's presented instead of the transclusions?
To be more precise... from here, when I click the Edit link next to the Articles section, the software takes me to edit User:Blaxthos/IBM#Articles (logically), whereas i want it to take me to edit User:Blaxthos/IBM/Articles (which is what is transcluded). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
==Articles==
from User:Blaxthos/IBM to the start of User:Blaxthos/IBM/Articles; and move ===Corporate===
from User:Blaxthos/IBM/Articles to the start of User:Blaxthos/IBM/Articles/Corp. — Richardguk (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)between transclusion, and linking, or similar ways not to fill up pages with words? PPdd (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello!
Is it possible to transclude (or substitute, for that matter) user pages into other user pages? I wanted to do some trasclusion tests in my userpages, but I haven't found a way to transclude my subpage into my Sandbox subpage so that I can test the transclusion.
Thanks! Ilias K., Greece 22:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaniardGR (talk • contribs)
I found it useful to quote from policy in the WP:How2title essay, specifically the list of general naming criteria from Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title. Of course I could just copy the list into the essay, but then any time something in the list changed the essay would need updating too to remain accurate.
It seemed like an obvious case for using transclusion, so I moved the list of criteria into a subpage of WP:Article titles and transcluded it into the essay as well as into the main page. It did not occur to me that anyone would object, since this had no effect on what the policy said, but there were quite a few objections. The primary concerns were:
There was quite a bit of discussion about it, starting at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Principal_naming_criteria_in_subpage, and we eventually (today) settled on a compromise to put the list of criteria in an onlyinclude block, so that the whole page could be transcluded, and yet only the list of criteria from the transcluded page would be displayed on the transcluding page. This works fine, but it occurs to me that folks here might have additional ideas or comments.
It seems to me that, in general, it could be useful to "share" certain sections of policy and guidelines on other policy, guideline and essay pages. Do we have any precedent for that? Is it really a problem? Any ideas, especially after reading the comments in that discussion, on how people's reservations might be alleviated? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
As for the "onlyinclude" limitation, I noted that at WP:AT, and also that consensus seems to be that it's a rather rare need. If true, the limitation shouldn't matter.
But what I would like to see is "targetable onlyinclude" tags, so you could make a tag like <onlyinclude id=foo> and then transclude just that section with something like {{PAGENAME|id=foo}}. Of course that would be a wikimedia enhancement. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I've figured how to do selective transclusion and added a section explaining it: WP:Transclusion#Selective transclusion. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible for this transclusion to only grab a section of page, and not the entire page? For example, I tried in my Sandbox to only grab the section "Proposed use of nuclear weapons" from the Korean War page, by using the {{:Korean War#Proposed use of nuclear weapons}} syntax, but I got the entire page. It would be definately be very useful to only grab various sections, as a discussion on WT:NOR may show. Thanks. wbfergus Talk 15:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I recently used transclusion in a way that yielded unexpected results. I was attempting to transclude text from two sections of one article into two sections of another. Here's an example of what I tried:
The target article contains the following wikitext:
== Section 1 == {{:Source Article#Section I}} == Section 2 == {{:Source Article#Section II}}
The source article contains the following wikitext:
== Section I == <onlyinclude> Hello world. </onlyinclude> == Section II == <onlyinclude> Lorem ipsum... </onlyinclude>
The rendered result I expect in the target article is:
Section 1 Hello world. Section 2 Lorem ipsum...
Instead, the target article renders in the following way:
Section 1 Hello world. Lorem ipsum... Section 2 Hello world. Lorem ipsum...
If using the "#" fragment identifier won't work for transcluding content from an article section, is there something else that will work? Regardless, it might be a nice addition to this article to explain that fragment identifiers have no effect on transclusion. I've been unable to find information about this anywhere in Wikipedia. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Recent discussion moved to bottom of page.
This discussion was moved from above.
If I may intervene, none of this would be necessary if we had the extension Labeled Section Transclusion. I'm using it in on one of my friends' wikis, and it is very useful. I wonder what is required to have an extension installed on Wikipedia.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 11:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I wondered if there was a way to transclude from MediaWiki to an external site.
As an example... say I wanted to transclude "Today's feature picture" (see the main page) to my iGoogle page. I understand how transclusion works within Wikipedia. I'd type this --
{{POTD protected/{{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY2}}}}
-- and this would appear:
![]() |
The oroblanco (Citrus maxima × C. Paradisi) is a sweet seedless citrus hybrid fruit. It was developed as a cross between a diploid acidless pomelo and a seedy white tetraploid grapefruit, resulting in a triploid seedless fruit that is less acidic and less bitter than the grapefruit. The oroblanco was patented by the University of California in 1981 after its development at the university's citrus experiment station by Robert Soost and James W. Cameron. Oroblancos are either round- or oval-shaped with a thicker rind than grapefruit. The fruit is available from September through December and can be peeled and eaten like an orange. A similar fruit named the "sweetie" has been commonly cultivated in Israel since 1984. This photograph shows oroblancos grown in Israel, one whole and one sectioned. The picture was focus-stacked from 12 separate images. Photograph credit: Ivar Leidus
Recently featured:
|
Are there any ways to transclude this to an external site, specifically, outside of an instance of MediaWiki? Thanks for the help. If there is a more appropriate place to ask this -- I tried going to the MediWiki site first -- your advice is most welcome.
--Kittell (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Two questions:
Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Ha, ha! Yup, I couldn't find out what the proper subject heading was, which is why I highlighted it here. It didn't occur to me to check the Wikitext. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to get transclusion to work between wikis, and so far no luck; I keep getting an error that the template can't be found, and no one on the Mediawiki forums seem to have any suggestions for dealing with this problem. In addition to setting scary transclusion, you supposedly have to edit the interwiki table. It's possible to reference a page in wiki A from wiki B, but not to include all or part of the page's contents. Still working at this, but losing hope. Vasily
Count me among the sadly inquisitive. mw:Manual:$wgEnableScaryTranscluding explicitly mentions trancluding pages or templates, but I can find no syntax that does not assume the Template:
namespace.
--HonoredMule (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
@HonoredMule: I found the syntax at mw:Help:Templates#Usage. {{:Pagename}}
uses the main namespace.
Mskfisher (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I run a MediaWiki instance that allows transclusion from Wikipedia.
Tags such as <noinclude/> and <includeonly/> are not being respected in the transclusion however. Are there any known work-arounds for this issue so that I can always dynamically display the current version of headers such as {{Uncategorized}}? Thanks in advance for any help you may be able to provide. --Bala (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I posted this to Wikiproject templates, and haven't received a reply in five days, so I figured this might be the place to get an answer.
So I'm working on a template that has a huge #switch: condition, and I'd like to separate some of the groups of pattern matches into separate lists for ease of maintenance and readability. I'd like to do something along the lines of
{{#switch:{{{1|}}}
where
{{template/list1}}
{{template/list2}}
|case 327 = xxxx
|case 328 = yyyy
|case 329 = zzzz
{{template/list3}}
|#default = error
}}{{template/listN}}
are just big lists of |case N = result N
lines. I already tested a trivial implementation in user space, and it didn't work at all. Anybody know if there's a trick to pull this off? VanIsaacWScontribs 00:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
{{#switch:{{{1|}}}
|case 327 = xxxx
|case 328 = yyyy
|case 329 = zzzz
|#default = error
}}
Do you just mean a chunk of text, or do you mean a formal section that starts with ==section== and ends with the next one? Johnmperry (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
At the end of the section "selective transclusion", sub-section "target document markup", there is the instruction
Of course, the same page can transclude two or more sections this way by including multiple such lines. There is no limit to how many selectable sections for transclusion a document can have. The only requirement is that each transcludesection be given a value that is unique within that page.
I don't think that is actually true. In the case that a template contains this structure:
and chunks a and c are always to be transcluded together, then it is OK for them to have identical <onlyinclude>... section headers. Which is what you'd expect. Worked in my sandbox at least.
However there is a part of the Help:template, about nesting tags, which I found confusing. While it may be OK to nest different types of conditional transclusion tags, it doesn't seem possible to nest <onlyinclude>.
John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Mon 10:30, wikitime= 02:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I tried to transclude Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment/A-Class_criteria with the code {{Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment/A-Class_criteria}}
but only the first section of the article came through. How do I get the entire page to return? RiverStyx23{submarinetarget} 21:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
{{#ifeq: {{{transcludeall|}}} | yes | | <noinclude> }}
and make your call as {{ pagename | transcludeall=yes}}
to give your full-page transclusion a way of happening, while preserving the expected behavior for those who've already come and gone. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 06:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)I have an article about a large project (X) on an intranet mediawiki. There is a lot of information, so I've chosen to create separate articles dealing with the different facets of the project (X users, X access, X codes, X getting started, X ...).
However, it is also required that this same information is available in the original project-article (which becomes huge very fast). The obvious way to go about this seems to be transclusion. This becomes even more the natural reflex when you consider that some of these articles are useful for more than project X alone: project X uses technology Y, and an article about how to do something in technology Y is useful for project Z as well. Z could also do some transcluding.
Now, my original project X article has sections on multiple levels. Information is usually transcluded directly under the section, sometimes there is a little introduction/context that is project specific. The transcluded article itself is also often structured using sections.
As it is now, the sections of the transcluded article are taken over on the same level. A level 2 section from the original article becomes a level 2 section in the project article, no matter where it is transcluded. In the project article, this breaks the TOC and section markup (well, it still works, but it isn't logical any more).
The behaviour I would like to see is that the sections from the transcluded article are put on level =
So that an article with level 2 (==) and level 3 (===) sections, when included in the project article in a level 3 (===) section, automatically become level 4 (====)and level 5 (=====) sections. Is there a way to do this? If not, can you point me in the direction of relevant documentation/files for me to hack it on my own installation?
193.244.33.47 (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, i have a template called Template:Person that is as follow:
__TOC__
Hello Mr {{name}}
your address is: {{Address}}
and every time i import contacts in append mode if that person has two entries, on his Page "John" i am getting the following:
the Table of content that is good.
Hello Mr John
your address is: villa n1
Hello Mr John
your address is: villa n2
What i actually want is as follow: Hello Mr John
your address is: villa n1
your address is: villa n2
How can i do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.26.129 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The last 37 edits to this page have been vandalism or other unproductive changes and reverts of those edits. With such an abysmal wheat-to-chaff ratio, would anyone object to just getting this page semi-protected? I've not gone to RPP yet, but I will in a couple days if no one has a substantive objection. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 20:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I work on a pretty large wiki where numerous individuals upload images and categorize them. What I'd like to do is to be able to transclude the category page so that it doesn't just call the text, but also shows the images within that category. Does anyone know of a technique or extension that might do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.19.68 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've been testing transclusion of sections from a source page (User:Hwy43/sandbox/Transclude A) to two targeted pages (User:Hwy43/sandbox/Transclude B and User:Hwy43/sandbox/Transclude C). What I want to do is exclude a few words in the source page from transcluding onto the B page.
Are we not able to embed <noinclude></noinclude> tags within <onlyinclude><onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|principalcriteria}}}|principalcriteria|...}}</onlyinclude> tags?
Any help would be appreciated. Cheers and Happy New Year! Hwy43 (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunate about the trouble with transcluding parts of tables, which is what I was intending to test next. I'll look into the new syntax you've suggested. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Ill Like New Cntent! 54.237.29.232 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
...The concept of being able to include entire articles inside another, purely by use of a few characters either side of the article's name, is brilliant! whoever invented this one man, definate barnstar =) From just another tireless contributor....SteelersFan UK06 06:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree - But I wonder what happens if you create a nice endless loop (i.e. the contents of page A are transcluded from page B, but page B is a transclusion of A...) 121.72.241.213 09:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Calamitybrook (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
\include
and MS Word calls it "embed". While "include" and "embed" both have other meanings, both in and out of computing, "transclude" has only a single meaning, and that meaning matches up to Wikipedia's usage. 169.130.108.20 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)how to paly soccer first think is to wear soccer close because you not going to get hart. also you need to get 12 people to play the game they have to know the soccer rules. if they watch the flfa 2014 world cup they going to have a lot of informant about the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keroloshanna (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible to transclude a random page from a specific category (without extensions if possible also). The effect I want is; I will have a number of templates with one line of text (stats) all put into a single category. I want a different random template to appear on the main page each time you visit. I'm doing some work for the company i work for, and i'm not in charge of which extensions are installed - which is why I hope this can be done without the need for any.
Is it possible to transclude a specific revision of a page? Something like one might think {{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PageName&oldid=00000000}}
would do? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Transclusion is a programming concept that is quite useful for the programming audience, which is a sophisticated audience well able and even eager to deal with abstraction and coding.
What's needed for those of us who just want to use the available tool to edit Wikipedia is a separate article that starts from the basics and is clear for someone with no programming background, perhaps named Transclusion (editing Wikipedia). Such a page is needed to serve as the landing page for the "Transclusion" links soon-to-be ubiquitous throughout Wikipedia. An article providing the degree of abstraction needed for programmers is going to be way too much information for the non-programmers trying to learn only what we need to edit Wikipedia, and needing that much explained from the ground up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 July 2014
{{curly braces}}
to transclude it, which makes the contents of that page appear where you typed it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Hi there. This might sound weird, but I need to transclude a noinclude tag and I'll be damned if I can figure it out. Sorry if this scenario description is a little clumsy; I'm not as geeky as I used to be...
There are 2 templates (A & B) and a page (C). A is transcluded to B and B to C. A should pass "category:D" to B but not to C. I've tried bunches of stuff, from
<includeonly><noinclude></includeonly>category:D<includeonly></noinclude></includeonly>
to God-only-knows what else, and Google is not my friend. I've been banging my head on this for longer than I care to admit. Any suggestions? --Grugnir (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template:B|stuff which should only be on Template:B}}
or
{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|C||stuff which should be everywhere except on C}}
{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{BASEPAGENAME}}/subpage|[[category:{{{category}}}]]}}
,Hi. I'm trying to figure out if there's a way from wikipedia markup to pull the "years active" value of a band in a band article's infobox (for example, transcluding Sonata Arctica's value would output "1995−present") into the list of bands in that genre without having to maintain the values across all bands in the list. I basically would like to transclude just the "years active" value from the infobox of the respective band. Is there a way to do it? Vortiene (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, I'd prefer a way that wouldn't require markup on the articles of every band on that list. Only markup on the list itself. Don't know if that's possible though. Vortiene (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
or <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude>
; the other is to use Labeled Section Transclusion. Bear in mind that both of these can greatly slow down page rendering, because the whole of the page gets transcluded (invisibly) before the unwanted bits are cut out. If all you want is one or two years from each, that is overdoing it. Perhaps you could use Wikidata. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I see that there are some transcluded templates, like the Transclusion article's example Template:EH listed building row, that are used in constructing tables in other articles. These transclusions transclude only the structural template, not variable content interpolated within them. That is, a table's structural template is transcluded from a common source, but the data in it in a specific article is not transcluded; rather the data is entered as a single instance into the article. How does an article editor do that?
Similarly, if an entire table T is transcluded into an article A, how does an article editor edit the transclusion in article A to change its data to be specific to only article A? Without editing the source table T, but also without having to undertake major editing in Article A (perhaps just a single value in a large table)?DocRuby (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I was sent to this Transclusion article from a link on another Wikipedia page, that seemed to be referring to it as a general Wikipedia tool (inviting me to investigate sources "transcluded" into the page I was on).
Maybe the biggest problem is that the reference was to this page, and should have been to a training-wheels page for Wikipedia readers and text-wranglers on how transclusion is used in Wikipedia and how to use transclusion.
And maybe another Transclusion page for Wikimedia text wranglers.
This page may be fine for code-wranglers, and there should be link-trapping for references here that should be to an article for wikipedia text editors that introduces concepts from the ground up.
This comment requests clarification of the Transclusion article for which we are on the talk page.
Most of the discussion on this page is technical questions on the use and coding of transclusion, among people who well understand what transclusion is.
This article needs a rewrite. It needs more clarity to be useful and inviting enough to interest non-programmers new to the concept of transclusion in learning to use it as a tool and enabling us to do so as we edit Wikipedia. Helping us will help us make Wikipedia better.
For us, please add sample text that makes internal sense. It's hard enough to follow without adding multiple unrelated nonsense sample text like lorem ipsum foo 7 wives. The brain of a reader new to the concept will be better able to see if the examples are internally comprehensible and logically related; something like
Change original (& show reflected), e.g.,
Add to original (& show reflected), e.g.,
After some reflection, transclusion sounds like a great tool. The clearer we can make the explanation of the benefits, function, and use of the tool, the more it will be used. I was able to eek out some understanding of this article and the concepts, despite the "foo" examples rather than because of them. It was frustrating to be deprived of clear intuitive examples. I wanted and needed examples whose inner logic supported and illustrated the points being made.
The word "transclusion," the concepts of transclusion, and code to adeptly accomplish transclusion are not general knowledge. Transclusion is a computer science concept, so little known as to be marked as a spelling error by my dictionary as I work in Wikipedia, and having only 170,000 Google hits in total. There is a real challenge to making transclusion clear and salient enough to be enthusiastically adopted by the great majority of Wikipedia editors, who are non-programmers.
To meet this challenge of clear explanation from a standing start, we need to start with the fact that the brain necessarily moves from the concrete to the abstract in grasping new abstract concepts.
Introducing an abstract new word ("transclusion") and at the same time introducing the novel abstract concepts it reflects, which to many or most readers will be unfamiliar or non-intuitive, and then stacking on programming concepts and syntax that are similarly novel, is stacking novelty on novelty and complexity on complexity. The result is that the overall meaning, concept, and use of the tool is quite hard to grasp, but maybe necessarily hard. It can be made only as hard as necessarily and no harder by removing the nonsense examples, and adding examples that make intuitive sense. The benefits, meaning, and use will be clearer if simple clear intuitive examples are placed rather early in the article.
Using nonsense words as examples deprives the brain of a cognitive foundation for the abstraction being discussed, by removing the concrete example that could illustrate the principle and give a starting place for someone new to the concept to grasp it visually and intuitively.
Implicit in the article is the benefit of transclusion as a tool, namely that a lot of wiki text gets pasted several places throughout Wikipedia. It's the classic problem of multiple golden copies of the same text, with multiple simultaneous editors, multiplied by the power of our wonderful wiki. Explicitly including an explanation of the problem of non-identical updates, (with clear examples) would also help readers new to the concept understand the problem that transclusion can help them elegantly solve. Transclusion is actually pretty exciting as a wiki extender, a further powerful extension of the magic of group improvement of the overall text. I'm hoping for a clearer explanation here that empowers me to understand and use transclusion.
If an elegant clear explanation is developed here, starting from the fundamentals, perhaps it could be transcluded into a page for Wikipedia editors, and another for Wikimedia code wranglers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 July 2014
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.