Template talk:NewWiki boilerplate

This needs to stay syncronized with template:Wiki boilerplate unless we ditch one of them. TedErnst | talk 15:14, 22 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I think there should be just one John 15:45, 22 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Any idea how to accomplish that, John? TedErnst | talk 15:57, 22 May 2006 (EDT)
 * As you suggested I would dump one of them. My preference would be to use the inputbox methodology and NewWiki because I think it's easier. For ICANNWiki I put up inputboxes on both the Community page and on each category page and that way it was fairly obvious how to create new people, organizations and groups without complicated help pages and cut-and-paste. John 16:33, 22 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I think that's fine in general, but it doesn't take into account all situations. Sometimes we're creating pages from redlinks, like with the various Wikipedias. TedErnst | talk 17:55, 22 May 2006 (EDT)
 * True, so perhaps two pages are justified then... John 19:10, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

We can also use John's inputbox for the red links as well. And we can keep them synchronized as a community pretty easily, it is not mission critcal that they are synched immediately, when one notices unsynched, synch? MarkDilley

revert of delete tag
Please see the Community Portal button for adding new wikis. Test it out. This page is needed and cannot be deleted. Also, it is not mis-named, because it's for the NewWiki function. It's not a new "Wiki boilerplate", it's a "NewWiki" boilerplate. TedErnst | talk 02:55, 10 November 2006 (EST)


 * I don't understand.
 * Are you saying that we need a boilerplate to help people add wiki to the WikiIndex, and that we better not delete this "NewWiki boilerplate" as long as it is in use by the "add new wiki" button on the Community Portal? In that case, I totally agree.
 * Or are you saying that, for some reason, we need at least two boilerplates -- both a "Wiki boilerplate" and also a "NewWiki boilerplate"?
 * (In other words, There is a reason we need both a template:Wiki boilerplate and also a template:NewWiki boilerplate.?)
 * In that case, I disagree. I think we only need one, and it might as well be "Template:Wiki boilerplate", as long as the Community Portal button is adjusted to point to the One True Boilerplate. But perhaps I am merely ignorant of these "reasons" that seem so obvious to you.
 * Would you mind sharing those reasons with us less-enlightened types? --DavidCary 13:11, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

deletion nomination
78.32.143.113 nominated this boilerplate for deletion. I think we should keep the boilerplate, unless there's a new boilerplate for the "Create a New Wiki Page" feature at Community Portal. --EarthFurst 06:35, 24 December 2011 (PST)
 * The 'delete' tag is there because (a) this is NOT an acutal 'boilerplate', and (b) the actual boilerplate for the wiki template is here: template:Wiki boilerplate. This template was previously nominated for deletion back in 2006!  Furthermore, this boilerplate is not actually used - by looking at the Special:WhatLinksHere for this NewWiki boilerplate, you will see either links to talk pages of the actual template:Wiki boilerplate, or empty redirects.  I'd support the delete, along with the deletion of all the empty redirects. --Hoof Hearted 08:00, 2 January 2012 (PST)


 * Community Portal is using NewWiki boilerplate,
 * preload=Template:NewWiki boilerplate
 * buttonlabel=Create a New Wiki Page
 * but I assume one edit to that Portal will switch it to the next boilerplate. --EarthFurst 09:53, 7 May 2012 (PDT)
 * buttonlabel=Create a New Wiki Page
 * but I assume one edit to that Portal will switch it to the next boilerplate. --EarthFurst 09:53, 7 May 2012 (PDT)

misunderstanding . ..
There seems to be some misunderstanding (on all sides!) - and especially so on 'boilerplates'. Firstly, as I understand it, a 'Boilerplate' is simply (and ONLY) a method of 'copy and paste' - for experienced wiki editors who can copy/paste said boilerplate into a new or existing article, and manually enter all field data. A boilerplate will definately NOT contain any actual coding or syntax to render a true article - what a boilerplate WILL contain is effectively a 'link' to the specific template. So to take the template:Wikia boilerplate as a specific example, it contains 'copy & paste' info, along with hidden text, and Wikia-specific pre-formated URLs (along with Wikia standard edit mode and wiki licence) - but it also contains the 'link' to the template:Wiki - and it is this specific template:Wiki (and NO other template) which renders the correctly formated 'infobox' (with all its category links - status, language, edit mode, recent changes, etc) on an article page. To prove this point, create a new blank page (from a direct URL edit in your browsers address bar - WITHOUT using any of the 'create new wiki' type of pages), copy & paste the Wikia boilerplate, click on 'Show preview' button, then scroll to the bottom of the page, and under 'Templates used in this preview:' - it will list - 'Template:Wiki' (and NOT any other template)!!! Quite simply, it is ONLY template:Wiki which contains all of the specific syntax and coding. It is ONLY template:Wiki which is used to render ALL articles here on WikiIndex (well, those which are an article page on a wiki!) - and this is irrespective of which 'boilerplate' may be used, or whatever 'create a new wiki' page or button is used. As proof of this, open up (ideally in a new window or tab) template:NewWiki boilerplate, then click on its 'edit' tab. At the very top of the edit box window, you will see {{Wiki, and again, scroll down to the bottom of the page, look under 'Templates used in this preview:' - it will list - 'Template:Wiki' (along with three/four other templates - but none of those alone will render the correctly formated right-aligned 'infobox' for wiki articles). It will NOT list 'Template:NewWiki boilerplate' (or indeed any 'boilerplate' template) under the Templates used listing.

I'm gonna be BOLD, and amend the Community portal section to use the standard template:Wiki - and we can monitor it to see if it makes any changes. If it turns out to be a disasterous edit, then it can be reverted. Hoof Hearted • talk2HH 14:50, 8 September 2012 (PDT)
 * Let me explain this template: It is used as some additional text for Form:Wiki on a new page creation. --YiFei | talk 08:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Erm, BEFORE you hurredly altered it this morning to its current in carnation, this version did NOTHING when using Form:Wiki to create a new article entry - I've tried it using three different web browsers!
 * Furthermore, it has been more than one year since it was removed Community portal section - and its absence has caused NO problems either.
 * IMVHO, this is just creating un-necessary confusion. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted  • {{sub|Admin / 'Crat}} • talk2HH 08:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that Special:Permalink/170827 doesn't have too many additional texts when rendering?
 * I tested before, and it DID work. (I'm not sure what's wrong if you didn't, maybe a screen shot?)
 * Unncessary != not improvements --YiFei | talk 09:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say :-/
 * What browser and OS are you using? I'm using Windowz 7, and use either Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox (and a Comodo clone) and also Chrome - and none of them rendered (on preview) any text from this template.
 * OK, that was a subjective statement - some folks may have one point of view, others may be opposite point of view. I suppose the acid test would be does it add any actual constructive improvement to the use of Form:Wiki - when creating NEW wiki entries?  Best Sean, aka Hoof Hearted  • {{sub|Admin / 'Crat}} • talk2HH 09:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind.
 * Undoing for a test... seem a bug with after the upgrade, I'll figure out.
 * Yes, and also sometimes forgets to spell things, and the form actually helps. --YiFei | talk 09:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)