Template talk:Process header

Add topic
Active discussions



{{process header
 | title    =
 | section  =
 | previous =
 | next     =
 | shortcut =
 | notes    =

This template is meant to be used at the top of a page in the Wikisource namespace. Fill in any relevant information, and leave unknown or inapplicable parameters empty. Don't remove unused parameters, as these help editors use the template elsewhere.

Relative linksEdit

On pages works with many subpages, using relative links is highly recommended. This shortens the code and ensures that pages remain linked together even if the overall system is moved or reorganised. The three formats are [[/subpage]] (subpage), [[../]] (parent), and [[../sibling]] (sibling); see the example usage below. Note that [[../]] will expand to the title of the parent page, which is ideal if the page is renamed at a later time.

This depends on a page conforming to the page title standards in the Style guide, with works in the form [[Work title]] and [[Work title/Subpage]].

Usage examplesEdit

{{process header
 | title    = Possible copyright violations
 | section  =
 | previous =
 | next     = [[/Archives|Discussion archives]]→
 | shortcut = [[WS:COPYVIO]]
 | notes    = Description and categories.
Possible copyright violations

Description and categories.

See alsoEdit

Proposal to modifyEdit

I would like to propose that

  • there is a <br /> put in between the TITLE and SECTION fields
  • there are ← and → added to the respective previous and next fields

-- billinghurst (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I just realised that you added ← and → to the previous and next fields, leading to double arrows on many pages where this template is used. I corrected some manually, but since the number of pages is rather high, it might be better to let a bot do it. Is there some sort of consensus to have the arrows in the template?--GrafZahl (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@GrafZahl: I will run my bot through to get them updated. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thank you!--GrafZahl (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)