Template:Details is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should be proposed here first. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use ((edit template-protected)) to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Disturbing the margin is aesthetically sometimes mandated, but I dispute that it should be done whenever linking to a subarticle. In my view, it really clutters articles when there are several of these templates in rapid succession.

Incidentally, I don't think a distinction between articles and "subarticles" should be made. Often, the article linked to is less "sub" than the article it is being linked from. Since Template:Main now redirects here, I am removing the "sub" modifier. JFW | T@lk 3 July 2005 10:36 (UTC)

templates like this one shouldn't be used in rapid succession. This template is for article in a hierarchy. If you need something else go to Template talk:main and explain the need for a template siblingarticle. Most probably you should fix by using subarticleof instead of this template in the main article. --MarSch 3 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)

I suggest the text "For a more detailed treatment of this topic, see [[(({1))}]].", or shorter "For details, see [[(({1))}]]."; then it can also be used to link to a section of another article.--Patrick 4 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)

Another name is then appropriate: Template:See details.--Patrick 4 July 2005 09:28 (UTC)

Why would a section want to link to a section of another article in such a prominent way? --MarSch 4 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)

A treatment of the relation of A with B can be in article A or article B; usually one is chosen and in the other one there is a prominent link, with or without summary.--Patrick 4 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)

Okay good example. It is more symmetrical however to create a new article for this and use subarticle, but that's just me.--MarSch 4 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)

Another thing, the term "subarticle" could be understood (without context) as part of an article, instead of article on a subtopic.--Patrick 4 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)

The high-traffic article 2007 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament is an example of the need for further change along the lines discussed above, adding one other thing. There needs to be a way to link to a subsection without having an unsightly '#' sign on the page. It just doesn't look good or read well. I've experiment with it and can't get it to work. Wrad 03:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please define what is a "subarticle". I see that continental drift and plate tectonics are marked as being subarticles of each other. Perhaps a definition would help clarify what relationship is being specified. (SEWilco 5 July 2005 07:30 (UTC))

Since the word subarticle seems to cause problems. What about two other templates

• {details}: For more details on this topic, see the article {1}.
• {background}: For more background on this topic, see the article {1}.

Please discuss at Wikipedia:Templates_for_Deletion#Other_wording --MarSch 5 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)

This template was nominated for deletion, but there was no consensus to delete it (even if it came close). Thus it is kept. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005 for details; given the amount of people disliking this template, it is recommended that it be reworded, and/or its usage be reconsidered. Radiant_>|< 08:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Why not merge this with Template:Background? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because they have different purposes. When one article contains a summary of another article, the summarizing article refers for more details to the other article with {details}. The summarized article on the other hand uses {background} to indicate it is being summarized somewhere. Quite different. --MarSch 13:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't it be: "For more detail on ..."? Can't explain why but it feels better to me; as in "to show in more detail". Lambiam^Talk 23:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. –Dvandersluis 20:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has apparently never been adopted, but it is a good deal clearer than "main" To me, "main" implies the basic comprehensive article on a subject, but it seems to be customarily used the other way round, for the subsidiary page with the specifics. It would be nice to have it as an alternative. The preceding discussion here shows that others are also confused. DGG 00:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As it stands, you can only say:

For more details on this topic, see gay.

You can't say:

For more details on this topic, see gay, homosexuality & gay marriage.

I'm not saying that '&' must be there, we could say 'and' instead, etc., but we need to change it.100110100 02:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That makes two... I also would like this feature. I use it with the main tag and it would be very helpful on the details tag. Morphh ^(talk) 02:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we change this template so it can have infinite arguments?100110100 07:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we want to say 'For more details on this topic, see sex, homosexuality, and gay.' should we use another template, but not ((seealso)), ((main)), or ((futher))? A response on my talk page or to let me know you have responded would be greatly appreciated.100110100 06:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting:

• Replace (including the removal of the line break):
  • <div class="boilerplate seealso">
    :''For more details on (({2|this topic))}, see [[(({1))}]].''</div><noinclude>
• With:
  • :<div class="boilerplate seealso">''For more details on (({2|this topic))}, see [[(({1))}]].''</div><noinclude>

--Aaru Bui ^DII 12:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((Editprotected))

Why? You're putting a div inside a dd here, which may technically be possible but is certainly unusal. --ais523 15:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I second the "why?". If there is a specific reason, I'd be more than happy to fulfill the editprotected. Cheers. --MZMcBride 17:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The line break in the code generates a wider line break after the template. Also how it's done in the see also template. --Aaru Bui ^DII 14:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Y Done --ais523 14:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

((Editprotected))

Please help me add Chinese Wikipedia link, thanks. BrockF5 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• done --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we have too many templates like this. We have template:main and template:further. One is for when the section is a summary of a more detailed article, the other is when the linked article contains further information but isn't exactly summarized by the section in question. This template seems to be suitable for a merge with main, as it's described. I can't see any unique function it can perform. Richard001 (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are missing a cannonical example of how to best use template:Main, template:Detail, template:Further, template:Nutshell and such. More important, we're also missing the complementarytemplate:Capsule, which would make the lead of a detail article available for transclusion back up into the main article that it was sectioned off from. (I would have suggested Lead instead of Capsule, but that template name is already taken for Pb.) LeadSongDog (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I'd like to see how a 'canonical' example of 'details' would differ from 'further'. As for transcluding leads, I don't think that's a good idea. Leads do provide a good model for a summary (i.e. when ((main)) is used), but just copying, or especially transcluding a lead sounds like a bad (and somewhat lazy) idea. Richard001 (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree—transcluding article leads would be a bad idea. A good summary is often not quite the same as a good introduction.--Srleffler (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I mentioned at template talk:Spinout, leads often contain internal links, boldface etc that would be inappropriate in the summary section. There are also other potential problems, e.g. the lead may say 'which will also be treated in this article' or something like that. Perhaps we should try to avoid that sort of thing in leads, but it can still happen.

The 'capsule' template doesn't seem to have ever existed, but that's basically what 'spinout' is supposed to be, and I don't think we should be using it. The only advantage is that it keeps the summary up to date if the lead is changed. Richard001 (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((editprotected)) There doesn't seem to be any difference between this template and ((further)). Please make ((further)) into a redirect to this template.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I see in the docs for this template that ((see)) has been deprecated in favor of ((further)). Please also redirect ((see)) here. Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a distinction: ((details)) accepts exactly one unlinked article title as a parameter, where ((further)) accepts an arbitrary string (ie: one or more linked article titles) as a parameter. A simple redirect will not resolve that difference in input. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done per Luna Santin's reasoning. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, but what about ((see))?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed 'see' recently too, and it seems to be an exact duplicate of 'further'. As for not merging, all templates like this should accept multiple arguments (modify it) and they should all use the same code (i.e. not |[[link]] vs. |link). The only objection I can see is that they are so widely used, though this might not be a problem if the templates are modified suitably (I don't know enough about templates to say if this is likely, but still suspect it is). Richard001 (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd also like to see ((Further)) redirected to ((Details)), after that has been made possible technically. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THe usage pattern of eash is distinct, so I don't think that a merger should be done either. If anything is done though, it should be the other way around (((discuss)) → ((further))) if only because of the fact that ((further)) is a more adaptable template.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((editprotected)) Please remove the ((Mergefrom)) template from this page. I put an updated version of the merge template on the documentation page, which is where this one also should have been. Debresser (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you say so, chief.  Skomorokh  19:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please Add ar:قالب:تفاصيل —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.17.121 (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I recently added templatedata to the documentation, I would like someone to make a null edit to the template page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As there has been a dispute whether to use this or ((main)) and additionally for what purpose to use main, see Template talk:main#RfC. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add some kind of inline notice for the RfC/TfD linked above. This template and its counterpart are used very widely, but most editors who might have an opinion probably don't watch this page, or TfD, or VPP. Alas, since this is fully protected I don't know what wikicode would have been generated for the inline notice by Twinkle for a TfD, but it shouldn't be too hard to change the link in that type of code to point to the RfC link above. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done for now: Declining this for now per David Levy's comment at Template talk:Main#Inline notice please. Please reactivate the ((edit protected)) template if there is a consensus to roll out the notice. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've created a Lua version of this template at Module:Details. It is mostly the same as this template, but has the benefit that category and file links are automatically escaped with the colon trick, and links to sections are formatted as page § section, rather than the MediaWiki default of page#section. You can see some test cases at Template:Details/testcases. Would anyone object to me making the change? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also related discussions at Template:Hatnote, Template:Further, Template:See also and Template:Main. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right now this template (and the module that implements it) is structured such that the first (positional) parameter is a page, and the second is a string that specifies a custom topic instead of the default "this topic" (i.e. ((details|PAGE1|TOPIC))). I'd like to get rid of ((details3)) and its icky meta-template ((for-on-see)) in favour of allowing this template to take an indefinite number of pages and using Module:Hatnote list to implement and format the lists—it'd be far more elegant. However, since the "topic" parameter is used as the second positional parameter, it interferes with changing the template to allow that. I'd like to change the parameterization to improve this.

My first step would be a temporary tracking category to find every page that specifies the second parameter. Next, I'd implement a named "topic" argument which would default to the second positional parameter for backwards compatibility. Third, I'd change existing uses to use the named parameter instead of the second positional parameter, i.e. ((details|PAGE1|TOPIC)) → ((details|topic=TOPIC|PAGE1)). Finally, I'd remove the topic-defaulting from the second parameter, delete the tracking category, and add support for an indefinite number of pages, i.e. allow ((details|topic=TOPIC|PAGE1|PAGE2)) to work as would be expected.

Does anyone object to this course of action? Ought the plan to be tweaked somehow? ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 17:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With no comments here, I've added tracking, at Category:Pages using details hatnote with topic specified and will add the named "topic" parameter soon; about 730 pages (~12%) are affected. Once I add the named topic parameter I'll start converting pages to use it, and once all instances are converted, it'll be trivial to enhance the underlying module to support an indefinite number of parameters. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 14:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done—The update is complete. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 19:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As discussed above, this should definitely say "For more detail", not "details". — Hugh 23:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]