Category talk:Article type templates

Fanfic-section
Would be nice with an addition of a fanfic section/inline, rather than having just a fanfic article type.

Though, I have no idea how to make it. So, whomever that does know, please, go ahead. c: WarGodZajru (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * When would a section inline be useful, though? We don't allow fanfic on pages in the main namespace, so it would all be in user pages where the full article tag is typically a better fit anyway. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * When put like that, sure, it doesn't make much sense. I got the idea yesterday when I was editing the Zandali page, though got informed today that it wasn't allowed. So, now that I know that, there is no longer a need for the fanfic section inline. Would've been useful if what I did was allowed, but since it's not, yeah, no point in adding it. c: WarGodZajru (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Separated categories?
How come article type templates and inline templates are two separated pages?

Article type templates page pretty much has all of what the inline template page has, and even more. As if it's expanded upon it. Merge them, mayhaps? To reduce confusion. WarGodZajru (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you provide examples? They should be split better, if anything.-- 00:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, in the inline templates page, there are all the expansion inlines, faction templates, as well as a Hearthstone inline, among many other templates, which almost all too exist on the article type templates page. Thus, there are "duplicates" all over. Not sure if intended, to me it looked a fair bit strange, if anything. Would be best to keep them in one place. According to me, at least.
 * The list of "duplicates" is as follows:


 * Template:Alliance
 * Template:Bc-inline
 * Template:Bc-inline/dev
 * Template:C-inline
 * Template:Cata-inline
 * Template:Combat
 * Template:Hearthstone-inline
 * Template:Help
 * Template:Horde
 * Template:Legion-inline
 * Template:Manga-inline
 * Template:Mop-inline
 * Template:Neutral
 * Template:Novel-inline
 * Template:Shop-inline
 * Template:Skill-color
 * Template:Tcg-inline
 * Template:WA-inline
 * Template:WC1-inline
 * Template:WC2-inline
 * Template:WC3-inline
 * Template:WC3FT-inline
 * Template:Wod-inline
 * Template:Wotlk-inline
 * Template:Wotlk-inline/dev
 * Template:Wow-inline
 * Template:Wow-inline/dev
 * Template:WoWBG-inline

These are compared as inline templates /with/ article type templates. I get that most "duplicates" are inlines, though why not make a subsection in article type templates for that? Just a suggestion. ...And apologies if that list got a bit long. WarGodZajru (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * These are not duplicates, merely components. For example the template "WA-section" is built upon the "WA-inline" template. Both have different uses as well: "WA-inline" will be used to denote when, in a list, a particular entry is related to Warcraft Adventures, while "WA-section" will be used for example in the description of a character to indicate that a whole paragraph is dedicated to Warcraft Adventures.


 * For example: in the Chaplain page, see how the "WA-inline" template is used to indicate that Chaplain Mathers only existed in Warcraft Adventures. Now, in Orgrim_Doomhammer, see how "WA-section" is used to indicate that the whole section contains only Warcraft Adventures content.


 * If you read the code of the "WA-section" template you'll also note that it calls to the "WA-inline" template too! Xporc (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Aah, yeah, I definitely get it now. Thanks for the explanation! c:
 * Still seemed a bit odd to me to have multiple pages with the same templates, but yeah, no need to worry about that anymore. WarGodZajru (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge
Shouldn't we just merge templates together like all the inlines, sections, etc. So they will work something like Of course if we do, that'll be a lot of bot work. Smile. :) Just seeing what you guys think about this. . 10:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. Xporc (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's doable, I don't have any objections. I suppose the ease of such a move, depends on to which degree, these templates are used within other templates. PeterWind (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)