Difference between revisions of "Help talk:Style/Article summary templates"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Original discussion: rm closed discussion)
(A crazy idea (about Summary templates, Overview templates and categories): rm closed discussion)
Line 1: Line 1:
==<s>A crazy idea (about Summary templates, Overview templates and categories)</s>==
 
'''[Brainstorming mode ON]'''I don't even know if this could be feasible at all, but what if we could instruct the Article summary template to "read" (with an internal inclusion like those in the [[Beginners' Guide]]?) a specific standard section in each Category page that the article belongs to? That standard section would contain a description of the category, and that could somewhat replace the Overview templates. (How hard it is to explain insane ideas, further clarifications could follow)'''[Brainstorming mode OFF]'''. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 12:43, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
 
 
This is an example: looking at the code, I have used [[Template:Graphical user interface overview]], but with this method its text would be in the includable section (Overview) of the Category, and would be included (automatically with some template hacking?) in the Summary template field:
 
 
<div style="margin-left:10%; width:80%;">
 
 
<div style="border:1px solid #666;">
 
 
<p style="font-size:20px; font-weight:bold;">Lorem Ipsum</p>
 
 
<div style="padding:5px; float:right; width:25%;">
 
 
<p style="text-align: center; padding:3px; background:#333; color:white; font-size:13px; font-weight:bold;">Category: Desktop environments</p>
 
<div style="text-align: left; padding: 3px">
 
<p><tt><nowiki>{{:Category:Desktop environments}}</nowiki></tt> (Would this work?)</p>
 
<p>{{Graphical user interface overview}}</p>
 
</div>
 
<p style="text-align: center; padding:2px; background:#333; color:white; font-size:13px; font-weight:bold;">
 
Related
 
</p>
 
<div style="text-align: left; padding: 3px">
 
<p>[[#Lorem Ipsum|Link 1]]</p>
 
<p>[[#Lorem Ipsum|Link 2]]</p>
 
<p>[[#Lorem Ipsum|Link 3]]</p>
 
</div>
 
<p style="text-align: center; padding:2px; background:#333; color:white; font-size:13px; font-weight:bold;">
 
External links
 
</p>
 
<div style="text-align: left; padding: 3px">
 
<p>[[#Lorem Ipsum|Link 1]]</p>
 
<p>[[#Lorem Ipsum|Link 2]]</p>
 
<p>[[#Lorem Ipsum|Link 3]]</p>
 
</div>
 
 
</div>
 
 
{{Lorem Ipsum}}
 
{{Lorem Ipsum}}
 
{{Lorem Ipsum}}
 
{{Lorem Ipsum}}
 
{{Lorem Ipsum}}
 
{{Lorem Ipsum}}
 
{{Lorem Ipsum}}
 
{{Lorem Ipsum}}
 
{{Lorem Ipsum}}
 
{{Lorem Ipsum}}
 
{{Lorem Ipsum}}
 
{{Lorem Ipsum}}
 
{{Lorem Ipsum}}
 
{{Lorem Ipsum}}
 
 
<p style="margin:5px; border:1px solid #666;">Categories: Desktop environments</p>
 
 
</div>
 
 
<div style="border:1px solid #666; margin-top:20px;">
 
 
<tt>&lt;noinclude&gt;</tt>
 
 
<p style="font-size:20px; font-weight:bold;">Category:Desktop environments</p>
 
<p style="font-size:16px; font-weight:bold;">Overview</p>
 
 
<tt>&lt;/noinclude&gt;</tt>
 
 
{{Graphical user interface overview}}
 
 
<tt>&lt;noinclude&gt;</tt>
 
 
<p style="font-size:16px; font-weight:bold;">Subcategories</p>
 
...
 
 
...
 
 
...
 
 
<tt>&lt;/noinclude&gt;</tt>
 
 
</div>
 
 
</div>
 
 
This way every category would have a brief description, Overview templates would become unnecessary (merged with category pages), all (categorized) articles would have an almost automatic overview, and people would be more willing to categorize pages well. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 06:02, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 
:Ok, this definitely works: see [[Template:Sandbox]], [[:Category:Sandbox]] and [[Sandbox]] for an example ('''Note that [[Template:Sandbox]] has been edited meanwhile, so the examples don't work anymore at the moment.''' -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 08:22, 15 May 2011 (EDT)). My suggestion would be an ''Article summary category'' template, or just ''Category'' to be put among Article summary templates; note that it automatically adds the page to the category, so it doesn't even duplicate its name in the source.
 
:Template code:
 
<nowiki><includeonly>{{Article summary heading|Category: {{{1}}}}}</nowiki>
 
<nowiki>{{Article summary text|[[Category:{{{1}}}]]{{:Category:{{{1}}}}}}}</includeonly></nowiki>
 
 
:Usage:
 
<s><nowiki>[[Category:My category]]</nowiki></s>
 
 
&#123;&#123;Article summary start&#125;&#125;
 
&#123;&#123;Article summary text|bla bla bla&#125;&#125;
 
&#123;&#123;Category|My category&#125;&#125;
 
&#123;&#123;Article summary heading|Other heading&#125;&#125;
 
&#123;&#123;Article summary text|bla bla bla 2&#125;&#125;
 
&#123;&#123;Article summary end&#125;&#125;
 
 
:<tt><nowiki>[[Category:My category]]</nowiki></tt> is not needed at the top of the page. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 09:56, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 
:Of course if there's some category text that needs to be prevented from displaying in the template, it should be enclosed in <tt><nowiki><noinclude></nowiki></tt> tags (see the source of [[:Category:Sandbox]] for an example). -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 10:42, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
 
 
::My original plan with respect to overviews was to include them on their related category pages (category summaries). I, too, thought of something similar, but realized that many existing categories are too broad. Consider [[Template:Access control overview]], which includes pages under [[:Category:Security]]. I also envision an "Encryption overview" which would fall under [[:Category:Security]]. For this to work, we would need to split [[:Category:Security]] -- not necessarily a bad thing, but I believe the template system provides more flexibility. -- [[User:Pointone|pointone]] 20:41, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
 
 
:::All this idea was built on the assumption that if two articles need two different overviews, then they very likely belong to different categories (possibly in a parent-child relation) and vice versa: in your example there probably should be an Encryption category, child of Security. I still think that the flexibility given by the Overview template system has a (IMVHO too high) cost in terms of ease of use and maintenance, with respect to the category system, anyway as I said it was just brainstorming. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 08:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
 
 
::::Closed, see [[#Deprecation_of_summaries_and_overviews]]. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 01:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 
 
 
==See also or Related in Article Summary?==
 
==See also or Related in Article Summary?==
 
I think we'd better be coherent whether to keep links, references etc. either in a "See also" section at the bottom of the article, or in one (or more) boxes under the Article Summary at the top right of the article.
 
I think we'd better be coherent whether to keep links, references etc. either in a "See also" section at the bottom of the article, or in one (or more) boxes under the Article Summary at the top right of the article.

Revision as of 02:54, 8 March 2014

See also or Related in Article Summary?

I think we'd better be coherent whether to keep links, references etc. either in a "See also" section at the bottom of the article, or in one (or more) boxes under the Article Summary at the top right of the article.

See also #Article summary templates.

-- Kynikos 15:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

This is more a reminder than other, but I'm starting to like the idea of adding the rule to keep related ArchWiki articles in the Article Summary box only, and external links in See also sections only. Well, this way the "See also" default may even be changed (with bots, don't worry!) to a non-imperative, descriptive title like "Additional resources", "External links" or something like that. -- Kynikos 07:06, 14 December 2011 (EST)
Also remember that many external links in summaries can be found with Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Article_summary_link. -- Kynikos 07:41, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Advantages of links in See also:

  • There is more space for link descriptions
  • It is likely one will read or skim the article before actively looking for additional reading material. This naturally leaves the reader at the end of the article. It is convenient for the reader in this case if links are at the end of the article. James Eder 00:29, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
  • It seems more common (elsewhere) to have links at the end of articles (when they are not inline with the rest of the text). Following common convention it may be better from a usability perspective. James Eder 00:29, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
    Especially for people used to Wikipedia, which uses the same wiki software. Vadmium 11:12, 26 October 2011 (EDT).
  • I am not sure how much we care about this but it having the links at the end could be more friendly to small form factor screens and screen readers. James Eder 00:29, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
  • As a section, "See also" gets its own TOC entry granting easy access from near the top of the article. Alternatively one may press the END key. James Eder 00:29, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
  • More formatting options here than in summary. Emiralle 13:12, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
  • More inclined to put external, or less closely related stuff here. Emiralle 13:12, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
  • See also section would not be skipped if you start reading the main text sequentially from the top. Vadmium.
  • [add more advantages...]

Advantages of links in Article Summary:

  • Immediately visible
  • Beyond some minor editing inconvenience, is there any real disadvantage of having the most interesting links in both locations? It could be advantageous for the reader to have some links in both locations. James Eder 00:29, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
  • I think putting very closely related links in the summary gives the topic more cohesion, and as James Eder said, they could be included at the bottom as well. Emiralle 13:12, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
  • It would theoretically be more effective in preventing duplication of content within the wiki, as (unexperienced) editors would have a clearer view of the articles where related content could already exist (true especially with series (or "rings") of articles on the same subject). -- Kynikos (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • [add more advantages...]

Deprecation of summaries and overviews

As discussed in #Original discussion, although article summaries were intended to have a different use from introductions, this difference is really too subtle to be understood by many, and this is reflected by the fact that in the vast majority of articles, if not in all of them, article summaries are misused, especially in two ways:

  • they substitute or duplicate the introduction
  • they provide a useless summary that is already evident by looking at the table of contents

Often an article summary is added only to justify the floated box in order to add related links, just click a few times on Special:Random and see for yourself.

Second, as touched on in ArchWiki:Requests#Mention UEFI boot loaders in the overview, overviews are hard to maintain and they seem an unnecessary complication, as a link to the main "overview" article would serve the purpose much better (Boot Loaders in that example), or, if an overview article is absent, an overview could be easily added to the article itself, e.g. in the introduction. Note that overviews are used very sparingly, so they can also be seen as a non-standard feature of our articles.

This discussion, therefore, intends to plan the deprecation of both article summaries and overviews, leaving the right-floated box only for related links.

Now, there would be 2 * 2 main ways to implement this:

1. Create a single Template:Related links template, that will host the links as its first argument

2. Create two templates, Template:Related links start, Template:Related links end that start and end the floated div, just like Template:Article summary start and Template:Article summary end

A. Create a Template:Related template in order to induce users to use a standard formatting

B. Allow content to be liberally added to the floated box

1A:

{{Related links|
{{Related|Link A}}
{{Related|Link B}}
{{Related|Link C}}
}}

1B:

{{Related links start}}
{{Related|Link A}}
{{Related|Link B}}
{{Related|Link C}}
{{Related links end}}

2A:

{{Related links|
[[Link A]]

[[Link B]]

[[Link C]]
}}

2B:

{{Related links start}}
[[Link A]]

[[Link B]]

[[Link C]]
{{Related links end}}

My preference goes to 1B.

I would be very strict and only allow simple internal links in the floated box, so no alternative link anchor, no link descriptions, no external links, no subheadings... That kind of links should only be used in "See also" sections. Of course any opposing opinions will be considered.

-- Kynikos (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC) (EDIT: Kynikos (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC))

My preference is 2B. It support [[fstab (简体中文)|fstab]] which is more clean. -- Fengchao (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Good point, I didn't think of language tags. I'd prefer using a Related template in order to discourage exotic uses of the floated box, and also because otherwise links should be separated by blank lines, or <br> tags, or listed with bullet points, all solutions that look ugly to me.
My compromise proposal is localized Related templates:
3A:
{{Related articles start (简体中文)}}
{{Related (简体中文)|Link A}}
{{Related (简体中文)|Link B}}
{{Related (简体中文)|Link C}}
{{Related articles end (简体中文)}}
this would also allow using localized shortcut redirects:
3B:
{{Related articles start (简体中文)}}
{{zh-CN shortcut|Link A}}
{{zh-CN shortcut|Link B}}
{{zh-CN shortcut|Link C}}
{{Related articles end (简体中文)}}
Note that the Related_articles_start/end templates should need localized versions in any case. -- Kynikos (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to create optional second parameters for text to show. This could eliminate localized template:
{{Related links start|Start text}}
{{Related|Link A (简体中文)|Link A}}
{{Related|Link B (简体中文)|Link B}}
{{Related|Link C (简体中文)|Link C}}
{{Related links end}}
If this can not be done, then I am OK with 3A.
-- Fengchao (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, let's allow alternative anchors for Template:Related, but Template:Related_articles_start (better name than Template:Related_links_start) will have to have localized versions because I want to prevent anyone from using an alternative heading for purposes different than listing internal related articles. -- Kynikos (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
(I don't know if I'll be able to implement this before the weekend) -- Kynikos (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I took an important test in Theoretical Physics today...
Note that the approach with Template:Related won't save you from unintended content - see Fonts. Though I completely support it, the additional description is really redundant, bad looking etc. Let's keep it as clean as possible.
We should also consider keeping Template:Article summary heading (under different name of course), it is appropriately used in Xorg. Though Xorg is pretty special in this case and most of the links are already linked from the article, so I won't miss it so much if it just goes away.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
(Ok, we'll let you off this time, but remember that the ArchWiki always comes before trivial things like university exams :P Just kidding, I hope you did great!)
I know that the template approach is not fool proof, but as I've written it will be effective in discouraging misuses of the floated box.
About sub-heading templates I'm against, I don't really like exceptions, keeping it simple always pays back in the end, it will only be a matter of getting used to the new formatting.
-- Kynikos (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, on second thought Xorg is just an exception and can be easily changed (the right box is almost as long as the table of contents, so slimming down will only help). Let's keep it simple. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Right, starting work on #Procedure. -- Kynikos (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Procedure

Once the deprecation plan is approved, the steps for the transition are:

  1. [done] Create the new templates
  2. [done] Replace the documentation in all article summary and overview templates with warnings about their deprecation Update the relevant Help articles: Help:Style, Help:Template...
  3. [done] Update the relevant Help articles: Help:Style, Help:Template... Replace the documentation in all article summary and overview templates with warnings about their deprecation
  4. [done] Update the most important articles so that they will be taken as examples by everybody (remember to link to this discussion from the edit summary)
  5. Slowly update all the other articles, no need to rush this step; of course there's no way to do it with a bot, as there are too many variables
  6. Delete all article summary and overview templates

For each article:

  • If there's no introduction, just use the article summary
  • If there are both an introduction and a summary, merge the summary into the introduction, or just delete it if completely useless
  • If there's an overview, either copy it in the introduction, or, better, simply replace it with related links
  • Restyle all the existing related links to use the new formatting
  • Any other type of content should be moved to the article body, for example the "See also" section

A list of the articles currently using an article summary box can be found at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Article summary start. Note that they are really a lot, use Special:MostLinkedTemplates for following the countdown.

-- Kynikos (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

May I propose an additional step between 4) and 5): include some modified version of Template:Out of date with fixed message and links to this discussion (or other relevant page) into Template:Article summary start in order to induce contribution of other people and speed up the transition. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, this conflicts a bit with the "no hurry" clause in 5). I wouldn't like to add an invasive note, maybe we could consider adding a superscript link like "Summary1" and/or a message in ArchWiki:News. -- Kynikos (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
We can wait a week (or longer) to see how things are going, do the problematic stuff ourselves and discover as much potential problems as possible etc., and then "invite" other people to help with the huge amount of simple stuff.
My point is that when the transition is in progress, at first sight there won't be any difference (assuming that Template:Related articles start will look the same as Template:Article summary start), only the updated pages will miss the Summary and Overview. If we add some deprecation note, then I'd expect at least some people to become involved.
I'd more like some text in the link, perhaps "SummaryDeprecated template" would be better. Anyway, this can be discussed when the time comes...
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course some additional help for the simple cases would be very welcome; my intention would be not to confuse those readers who don't know/care what a template is (I suppose they are the vast majority), especially avoiding words like "deprecated", which may be associated to the piece of software discussed in the article.
What about something like "Summaryhelp replacing me"? Does it look very weird?
As you note, of course there's time to refine this, we'd better get to 4) (included) by ourselves.
-- Kynikos (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The current stage of the procedure is rather slow, so I think we've already reached point 5). Btw. I'm fine with "help replacing me", even if it might seem weird - we want those templates to go away, right? -- Lahwaacz (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, let's see how effective it is. -- Kynikos (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Swapped 2 and 3. -- Kynikos (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
1, 2 and 3 are done, 4 can be started. -- Kynikos (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I hope that Arch Boot Process an related count as important articles, though I made a couple of silly mistakes, so the edits are by no means exemplary :(
Anyway, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Boot_process_overview and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Access_control_overview are almost empty, is it fine to just remove the overview template (English text) from localized pages? Or just replace it with the included text so that the templates can be deleted?
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Arch Boot Process and related are indeed important, I like what you've done there, what mistakes have you done?
Yes, let's just hardcode Template:Boot_process_overview and Template:Access_control_overview where they're left transcluded and then I'll delete them.
-- Kynikos (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
...or better, let's replace them with direct transclusions of the categories where the text actually resides. -- Kynikos (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, [1] speaks for everything... I also screwed up several edit summaries, copying only the text without adding brackets for the link ^^. (Actually I have an excuse for this one: for this weekend I'm stuck with really slow computer and Midori browser that does not have suggestions/completions for form entries, so I had to manually copy every single summary.)
I've taken care of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Boot_process_overview, the template can be deleted.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Eheh it's good to see that you strive for perfection ;) The template is deleted, good job again! -- Kynikos (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Template:Networking_overview and Template:Graphical user interface overview can be deleted, just Pointone's userspace remains: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Networking_overview, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Graphical_user_interface_overview.
Well, Template:Graphical user interface overview is actually used also in #A crazy idea (about Summary templates, Overview templates and categories) in a way that changing it would compromise the discussion. I'll leave this problem to you as the originator of that discussion :)
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
All fixed, templates terminated. -- Kynikos (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

List of deprecated templates

Probably all their translations should be replaced too... -- Kynikos (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiMonkey Editor plugin

I have a proposal/feature request to make the update process easier: I think it would be possible to have a plugin for WikiMonkey to handle one specific case when there are only interwiki links in the floating box. For example

{{Article summary start}}
{{Article summary wiki|Suspending to RAM with hibernate-script}}
{{Article summary wiki|Suspending to Disk with hibernate-script}}
{{Article summary wiki|Pm-utils}}
{{Article summary wiki|TuxOnIce}}
{{Article summary end}}

would be converted, but warning would be printed if there is any other Article summary template. The workflow would be that the editor gets the page manually into this state (moving external links, (re)moving the introduction...) and the plugin would take care of the rest (which is only repetitive replacing of template's name).

I think it is possible to safely isolate this case, of course correct me if I'm wrong...

-- Lahwaacz (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, initially I thought it would be easier to do everything by hand, but I agree it's worth spending some time to make a dedicated plugin, I'm working on it. -- Kynikos (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, this feature will be implemented in WM 1.14.0. -- Kynikos (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh sorry, probably you've already noticed, however I've forgotten to mention that it works a bit differently from how you outlined it in your post: you don't have to do any pre-adaptations to the code; just click on the plugin's button and it will create the hopefully correct templates by itself; it will also isolate a copy of the previous templates so that you can quickly review the automatic changes and eventually delete such copy. Well, it's much easier to understand if you just try and do it by yourself :) -- Kynikos (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed, it looks more user-friendly this way. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Problems

Links to categories

Ok, we already have a problem:

  1. a normal link to a category must be started with a colon;
  2. the alternative text for Template:Related must default to the first argument

1 and 2 imply that a Related link to a category displays the initial colon in the anchor.

This has some possible solutions:

  1. Force the initial colon directly from within the template for all links, hence letting link to a Category without the initial colon. The disadvantage is that Related links will behave differently from normal links, which could create confusion among editors.
  2. Do not allow an alternative text for Template:Related, but:
    1. either create localized Related templates for every language (discarded in #Deprecation of summaries and overviews);
    2. or create Template:Related2 (or similar name, suggestions are welcome) which needs 2 arguments (and fails if only one is provided), the 1st for the link and the 2nd for the anchor.

I prefer 2.2. -- Kynikos (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I've disabled the alternative text until we've decided what to do. -- Kynikos (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

+1 for 2.2. Seems simpler than 2.1 and this way we can more easily enforce the "only for localization" policy (which would be pretty hard with the original intention ;-) ). -- Lahwaacz (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, it's implemented in Template:Related2.
For completeness' sake, I forgot to mention that [[:Category:Help|]] (note the final pipe) would be a valid link (and would let Template:Related have an optional second argument), but it still would behave differently from [[:Category:Help]], as the first would appear as Help (non-expected) while the second would appear as Category:Help (expected anchor).
-- Kynikos (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Replacing Article summaries with Related articles

The above discussion deprecated Template:Article summary start and related. This discussion is now directly linked from every instance of such template and explains how to perform the replacement.

English articles

Basically you want to go from this set of templates:

{{Article summary start}}
{{Article summary text|This is a short summary}}
{{Article summary heading|Required software}}
{{Article summary link|Name of software (version)|http://www.link2software.com/}}
{{Article summary heading|Required hardware}}
{{Article summary text|Name of hardware (Manufacturer)}}
{{Article summary heading|Related}}
{{Article summary wiki|Related article title 1}}
{{Article summary wiki|Related article title 2}}
{{Article summary wiki|Related article title 3}}
{{Article summary end}}

To this one:

{{Related articles start}}
{{Related|Related article title 1}}
{{Related|Related article title 2}}
{{Related|Related article title 3}}
{{Related articles end}}
  • If the article doesn't have an introduction, use the first {{Article summary text}}'s argument.
  • If the article already had an introduction, see if the first {{Article summary text}}'s argument can be merged there.
  • Any other type of content should be moved to the article body, for example {{Article summary link}}'s arguments should go in the "See also" section

Non-English articles

The procedure is the same as for #English articles, except that you will have to append the normal language suffix to {{Related articles start}}, for example in a Danish article:

{{Related articles start (Dansk)}}
{{Related|Related article title 1}}
{{Related|Related article title 2}}
{{Related|Related article title 3}}
{{Related articles end}}

You may need to create the translated template, for example Template:Related articles start (Dansk), by copying there the contents of Template:Related articles start and possibly translating them.

-- Kynikos (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)