Template talk:Tag

Usage
This template is for inline tags. If you don't want tags to show up on the page at all, just put the at the bottom of the page. TedErnst 21:37, 22 Jan 2006 (EST) (edited to bring up to date TedErnst | talk 17:54, 27 October 2006 (EDT))


 * I think these tags are not really wonderful, you have to use the name of the category within the text, that's stupid. --Peu | talk 14:20, 27 October 2006 (EDT)


 * If the name of the category you want appears on the page, use the tag template. If not, they just use a standard category at the bottom of the page.  TedErnst | talk 17:52, 27 October 2006 (EDT)


 * Take a tour to what links to this template Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Tag: there are pages that mainly belong to non-existing categories. In my opinion this (at first glance) helpful template generates much work. --Peu | talk 17:34, 27 October 2006 (EDT)


 * I'm not understanding how it creates more work. Could you please say more?


 * Ted, sometimes you have to create the cats and link it to existing cats, otherwise you cannot find them without visiting the categorized wiki page itself, or looking on wanted cats. The categorization is only useful if it make at least one hierarchical tree. --Peu | talk 18:10, 27 October 2006 (EDT)


 * I disagree. Redlink categories are just fine, because they're tags.  Like tags at del.icio.us - we decided on purpose here not to impose a hierarchical category structure - of course one might emerge, but there's no reason to enforce any kind of scheme at this point - I'd guess at least half our wikis don't have categories at all - that would be really useful work, tagging everything - then if some semblance of structure emerges from that, great!  The idea is to be bottom-up. TedErnst | talk 20:46, 27 October 2006 (EDT)


 * I fully agree with your buttom-up point of view, but I began using the MediaWiki software with German contents, there you have much extra typing with the more complicated grammar (the same as in Russian, French etc.) therefore I type often things like  "des Deutschen Bundestages"  in such cases the tags would lead to grammatically malformed sentences or eccentric word orders (how can WikiIndex be (or become) Multilingual with such english-only tags)... a parameterized "Tag" tag, on the other hand, would be more complicated than the original WikiMedia-style category tags. With the red links I have absolutely no problem, but the visitor of WikiIndex, who wants to find a wiki in his/her language, needs some topic help. --Peu | talk 07:42, 28 October 2006 (EDT)


 * Ah, I see what you're getting at. The tag template is not required.  If it doesn't work well in German, than feel free to just use the standard MediaWiki category function.  If some more explanation needs to be written, okay, we can do that.  Tags are fully optional, as are categories, for that matter.  At least that's how I see it.  What about you?  TedErnst | talk 09:35, 28 October 2006 (EDT)


 * Ok, they are optional and do their work for keep typing small. I see Smiddle has already added the new parameters I talked about, and the template seems "less" trivial then before, as I expected. --Peu | talk 14:27, 28 October 2006 (EDT)

smiddle's additional parameters
Could someone please explain this change to me? Thank you. TedErnst | talk 14:21, 29 October 2006 (EST)
 * I'll try it:

Category: lets explode it a little: Category: (the first part is visible within the floating text)

(the second part works for categorization)

the first part displays an optional alternative text with the second parameter (the pipe means: take parameter #2, if not present, default to parameter #1)

the second part categorizes the page to the category named by parameter #1, if an alternative ordering in the auto index of the category page is needed, you can define the sorting key with parameter #3, if not the full page name will be used (this is the normal cat order behavior). Yes, I hate the MediWiki template syntax too, although I'm am a programmer because it's like typing machine code. --Peu | talk 14:54, 29 October 2006 (EST)

How about an example or two? I still have no idea here. TedErnst | talk 16:28, 29 October 2006 (EST)
 * Ted, here is an example for you. --Peu | talk 16:40, 29 October 2006 (EST)

complication, usefulness and documentation
These additional parameters are adding complication. Is there some clear benefit WikiIndex is getting from that complication? If so, could we please make it clear in writing? If not, let's revert back to the simple version. We want to make this place as simple as possible for people to edit, and the more complicated it gets, the less simple it is (obviously). And if we're going to keep this, it's needs clear documentation! TedErnst | talk 11:37, 30 October 2006 (EST)
 * I can revert this and make a template called to solve it. – Smiddle / T&middot;C&middot;@ 13:25, 30 October 2006 (EST)