It seems to me that the most common warning templates like this have an option with syntax of section=yes but this one only has section. Shouldn't there be an option here for the former? I'd sure like to not have to look these things up or guess. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 16:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Add the following to the top of the page between noinclude tags, or something similar:

((Distinguish|No prose))

The reason for this is there was a time a few months ago that I found an article that was mostly written in prose and would work better as a list. However, it was not until very recently until I found out that there was a template for that. I think it would be very helpful if there were a note about this. SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 20:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: ((edit template-protected)) is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. Cabayi (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cabayi, I know that I can edit the documentation, but the redirect-distinguish template linking to Template:Lists was above the template itself, rather than in the documentation, so it would make a lot more sense to me to include this with it. Otherwise, it seems like the redirect-distinguish template should be moved to the documentation, so that the two notice templates are more consistent with one another.--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 22:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I reopened the request because of my question.--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 22:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SkyGazer 512, I agree that both ought to be described in Template:Prose/doc#Closely related templates. Neither text "It is not to be confused with..." or "Not to be confused with " provides any real help as to which template should be used in which context. Cabayi (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like ((No prose)) was added to See also, which in my opinion works just as well as my original request. I've closed the request now. I also just realized that there's also a template named ((Create list)), somehow I had never realized that before.--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 12:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

This is kind of a follow-up to the previous edit request I made. So, after taking a look at many other templates, it seems like very close to all of them have their hatnotes in the documentation rather than above the template within includeonly tags. So, it makes sense to me to include ((Redirect-distinguish|Template:List|Template:Lists)) in the documentation instead of the actual template. Basically, that would be removed from the template and then put it in the documentation page instead - probably below "((Twinkle standard installation))" but above the description section. Of course, I'm able to edit the documentation page myself, but it's probably much easier for the same admin or template editor who removes the hatnote from the template to just go ahead and add it to the doc. :) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Add a link to the editing interface, to make it more accessible and to be consistent with most similar templates. Specifically "converting this (({1|article))}" would be replaced with "[((fullurl:((FULLPAGENAME))|action=edit)) converting this (({1|article))}]". See the sandbox. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Sounds good to me. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

I think the phrasing of this template should be simplified, as follows: The issue parameter:

| issue= This (({1|article))} '''is in a list format that may be better presented using [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Prose versus lists|prose]].'''

should instead read:

| issue= This (({1|article))} '''is in [[MOS:LIST|list]] format, but may read better as [[MOS:PROSE|prose]].'''

This phrasing would be closer to that at its opposite template, ((Create list)).

Secondly, the fix parameter:

| fix  = You can help by [((fullurl:((FULLPAGENAME))|action=edit)) converting this (({1|article))}] to prose, if [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists|appropriate]]. [[Help:Editing|Editing help]] is available.

should instead read:

| fix  = You can help by [((fullurl:((FULLPAGENAME))|action=edit)) converting this (({1|article))}], if appropriate. [[Help:Editing|Editing help]] is available.

The "to prose" is redundant, and I don't think the link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists, which is a duplicate because the fix parameter links to that same page, is warranted. —Hugh (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No comments so I have made the change. This may be reverted on request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

I propose to remove this sentence ("Editing help is available") from the template as it is meaningless, links to a general help page and is of use to nobody, just makes the template more wordy for no good reason. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a proposal that requires a consensus, please, before using the edit template-protected template. Thank you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 22:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, reasonable suggestion; support. Mathglot (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many articles use WP:PROSELINE style in certain parts but are not obvious lists, and could use a cleanup template. I suggest rewording:

This (({1|article))} '''is in [[MOS:LIST|list]] format, but may read better as [[MOS:PROSE|prose]]'''

to:

This (({1|article))} '''contains text in [[MOS:LIST|list]] format, and may read better as [[MOS:PROSE|prose]]'''.

A simple change that would make the tag more versatile and useful IMO. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m two years late on this but strong Support for this proposal. Mach61 (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect Template:Prose timeline has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13 § Template:Prose timeline until a consensus is reached. Mathglot (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect Template:Proseline has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 13 § Template:Proseline until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 07:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]