User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox
http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2706.0.html
http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2706.msg21441.html#msg21441
http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2706.msg21453.html#msg21453
Concerned about too much "partial transclusion" of articles
Let me try to explain the use of [b]<onlyinclude></onlyinclude>, <noinclude></noinclude> and <includeonly></includeonly>[/b] as simply as I can and in the context of what has been discussued in <url=http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2706.0.html>here</url>. I shall later herein refer to those terms as "transclusion stuff".
(1) By placing <onlyinclude></onlyinclude> around a section of text in the edit page of any article, you are segregating or placing a sort of invisible box around that section of text. That box does not affect the display of the main article page in any way at all. [b]Then you can develop a template that will also display the content of that segregated box somewhere else or in multiple somewhere elses.[/b]
(2) By placing <noinclude></noinclude> around some portion of the segregated text, you are excluding that portion of text from being displayed elsewhere by the template. This also does not affect the display of the main article page in any way at all.
(3) By placing <includeonly></includeonly> around some new text you introduced into the segregated text, you are entering new text that will be included in the text that is displayed elsewhere by the template but will not be displayed in the main article display. In other words, that also does not affect the display of the main article page in any way at all.
The overall net result is that the main article display is not affected in any way at all. However, the article edit page is sprinkled with all that "transclusion stuff" that is strange and weird to the majority of the CZ authors and editors.
So what are Caesar Chinas and I concerned about? Whenever some author or editor unfamiliar with the strange "transclusion stuff" makes a significant revison to the article, it might mess up the segregated text box and hence mess up the text displayed somewhere else by the template. If, as may easily happen, someone's revision of the article partially deletes or incorrectly re-arranges the "transclusion stuff", that might then actually mess up the main article page as well. In effect, authors and editors will have to become fairly knowledgeable programmers to avoid messing things up.
Caesar and I are also concerned about the proposal at <url=http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2706.msg21441.html#msg21441>here</url> to sprinkle that strange "transclusion stuff" throughout the edit pages of a great many (if not most) of the developed CZ artcles and the fact that it seems to have been unilaterally started to some extent ... without a full and complete discussion here on the forums.
I realize that when this idea was first proposed to be used for the Article of the Week and the New Draft of the Week (on the CZ home page), I thought it was a good idea and openly endorsed the idea. However, after becoming more familiar with the use of the "transclusion stuff", I became aware of the problems that could result. Both Caesar Chinas and Daniel Mietchen have also recognized the problems that could occur.
I now feel quite strongly that this needs study and discussion by at least Larry Sanger, Chris Day, Joe Quick, Matt Innis, Hayford Pierce and Howard Berkowitz. Of course, others can also participate.
Milt Beychok