Template talk:Title

My browser is not showing this correctly. It looks as though the new title is behind the Halopedia logo, leaving the technical title in view. --Dragonclaws 04:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The way mine shows it is it has the technical title slightly behind the new one, at the bottom. Except on my talk page, because the new title is so long it line wraps.  guesty - persony - thingy  07:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The preview worked for me not that i saved the edits but it still.-- ryan  n  green '' day 00:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Works on Browsers
Looks great on my Firefox Browser at 1024x768 resolution -- Esemono 07:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * All's well on Safari at 1440 x 900; I imagine we won't be seeing too many other resolutions, so, before my final adieu... TEN POINTS!!!  guesty - persony - thingy  I too am an AI... my owner's name is Supreme Honcho. 07:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks fine now. --Dragonclaws(talk) 07:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not was I had in mind, but my revision I think worked. Cheers, My Name is Helen (Talk) (Contribs) (Helen) [[Image:CortanaRR.jpg|15px]] 07:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has IE

 * to clarify: MOST people have IE...hell...all but 2 of my 108-student middle school class have IE! ;-) Only "self-respecting open source" users have Firefox. ;-)) -- RelentlessRecusant 23:01, 27 April 2007
 * Actually according to the stats page it breaks down like this:


 * MSIE 6 - 42.80%
 * MSIE 7 - 21.75%
 * Firefox 1.5 - 12.29%
 * Firefox 2 - 11.98%
 * Safari - 4.12%
 * AOL 9 - 2.01%
 * Firefox 1 - 1.93%
 * Opera 9 - 0.77%

So MSIE has about 65%, Firefox 26%, Other 8% or 2/3 of the people that visit Halopedia use IE. -- Esemono 01:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What does it do?
I have added it to some pages but I haven't seen any changes to the articles? So how does this work? --


 * The template is an old-hack that doesn't seem to work with Halopedia ever since we had the Social Features installed. I blame MediaWiki. I suggest asking ashley. - Sketch ist 09:28, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding usage
Currently, our pages use this template in article titles to both add the definite article "The" (e.g. Didact, Flood) or to hide disambiguation addendums (e.g. Forward Unto Dawn (poem)) However, I've come to think that both of these are problematic for a number of reasons. The title template is useful for italicizing titles of media and so on, but the addition or omission of parts of the title itself is something that I believe we should get rid of.

While I totally see the reasoning behind the addition of "The" in the title, this is ultimately impractical for the same reason as the omission of disambiguation; utility. Firstly, I've seen people type "The Composer" or "the Didact" over and over again precisely because we obfuscate the actual article title with the addition of the "The". There are other reasons as well, mostly the same ones as to why we don't put the definite article in the title proper anymore.

As for hiding bracketed disambiguation addendums, this can easily lead to confusion as to what the actual title of the page is since it's not very conspicuously visible aside from the URL bar. While looking at the address is hardly a colossal task, it's not something that's immediately obvious to a lot of people. That, and hiding the disambiguation serves no real purpose aside making the title itself slightly prettier, but I might again stress that the purpose of the article title isn't, ultimately, to be pretty or even be the most technically correct or all-encompassing name of the subject. The full title should always be readily available in the introductory paragraph (and in many cases the infobox), while the article title can almost be thought of as a shortcut.

This type of standard is also in place over at Wikipedia: for example, the titles of Joker (comics) or Flood (Halo) aren't rendered as "The Joker" or "The Flood" even though this would be possible with the title template. I defer to Wikipedia's conventions since while a wiki such as ours obviously differs when it comes to content, inclusion policies and the like, their formatting is generally a reliable precedent. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 08:40, 13 December 2012 (EST)


 * Truth of the title vs. accessibility is this scenario. I prefer the former, but if the latter is a problem, we need to know how often the title gets confused because of the title template. I do see t happen, but not as often as one would think, and is rather quick and easy to fix. Because of that, I'd stick with the actual title. Also, Wikipedia is notorious for having rather messy pages about fictional media topics, and I defer to the Batman wiki. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 12:03, 13 December 2012 (EST)