Template talk:Nutshell

Template:Nutshell is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. 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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nutshell template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 6 months

Template-protected edit request on 22 April 2024

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

Please add an {{{image|}}} parameter to allow custom images be used with this template. In other words,

Awesome Aasim 19:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. There have been a lot of weird opinions about the nut, and I think rather than unilaterally changing it there should at least be some consensus that this is a desired change. Primefac (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac This doesn't change the nutshell. It just allows other icons other than the nutshell to be used on some pages. Some pages would actually benefit from a different icon. Awesome Aasim 19:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is kind of my point - I am not sure if people are/would be okay with having a nutshell template that didn't use the nutshell. If people want to have it, great, I'll happily code it in, but I don't want to have to revert in an hour because someone disagreed with it. Primefac (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 11 August 2024

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

Please sync with sandbox; this spits out an error if someone trys to use this template in mainspace, like at Special:Permalink/1233734716. Thanks, Queen of Hearts (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a new Nutshell Icon?

Hi, I opened a discussion here if anyone is interested. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 21 August 2025

It is requested that an edit be made to the template-protected template at Template:Nutshell.
(edit · history · last · links · sandbox · edit sandbox · sandbox history · sandbox last edit · sandbox diff · test cases · transclusion count · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.

Edit requests to template-protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. Consider making changes first to the template's sandbox and test them thoroughly here before submitting an edit request. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

Add the |shortcutoverride= parameter, behaving exactly like it does at {{policy}}, to fix situations like the one described in this edit summary: [1]. What it does is it replaces the unnamed parameter with whatever is given, instead of displaying it as a shortcut. It shouldn't be too hard, I hope. FaviFake (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done:

Diff between sandbox and current: diff
Relevant testcases: Template:Nutshell/testcases § Title with a shortcutoverride

FaviFake (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linked image

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

File:Walnut.svg exists and looks like File:Nutshell.png. The Japanese Wikipedia is already using the SVG version on its version of the template. Going to File:Nutshell.png shows viewers a message that says to use the SVG version unless doing so would be inferior to using the PNG version. Z. Patterson (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completed – just fyi, editor Z. Patterson, there is also File:Walnut.png as well as File:Nutshell.svg. "File:Walnut.png" was used by this template when I changed it to ".svg". P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth @Anomie @Z. Patterson Do you think this change should be reverted and the old PNG icon reinstated after Anomie discovered the SVG file needs to be linked to for copyright attribution? FaviFake (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter to me. Having the image linked is fine or using the CC0 PNG is fine, as far as I'm concerned. Anomie ⚔ 17:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I thank you very much for that good catch! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 18:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently rediscovered that the Commons license templates, and most of ours too, have metadata licensetpl_attr_req and licensetpl_link_req that indicate whether the license needs the link-back. And with fresh eyes I realized I could fix my old User:Anomie/unattributed-image-finder script to actually work reliably by reading that metadata directly, so I did it. 🙂 Anomie ⚔ 18:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed I haven't expressed an opinion. I support reverting back to the old PNG image because I think the possible confusion caused by the linked image is not worth the benefits that come from an "improved" design, especially because the nutshell is often used on pages we send to new inexperienced users FaviFake (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think an inexperienced user would be confused? What exactly would befuddle them? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 18:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the cursur incites them to click the image, and when they do, they're WP:ASTONISHED to be redirected from a policy/guideline to a big image of a nutshell and a description of an image of a nutshell. FaviFake (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was extremely confused when that kept happening to me years ago. FaviFake (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was very confused about almost everything WP when I was an inexperienced user. So I dug in and learned. I've been a teacher, and I found that the best way to dispel confusion among the inexperienced is to instruct them and answer their questions. I got that a lot from experienced editors back then. The second best way on WP is to experiment and learn on your own. I did a lot of that, too. Maybe it's just me, but I cannot see how anyone learns from such a suggestion to use .png instead of .svg. When you click on a link that sends you to an astonishing page, then you can learn more about what's on that page, and! you might also learn how to use the "go back to the previous web page" button on your browser. Sorry editor FaviFake, I'm not convinced that a revert is the way to go here. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 19:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your arguement, but in this specific case I think we are teaching editors the wrong thing. I learnt everything I know about Wikipedia thanks to trial and error, but I do not think that new editors should learn that "if i click the images on some of these helpful grey banners, I will be sent sent to a very complex page talking about nutshells and copyright attribution and I should therefore not click these images anymore because clicking them does not do anything I would expect"

however, I would be less opposed to teaching editors that when you click on a proper image thumbnail, you will be sent to the page for that image. I just do not think editors should think the icons in templates are supposed to be clicked. FaviFake (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

honestly, even to this day I'm very surprised when I click on a linked image inside an mbox and it just sends me to its description page. I usually try to check the code of the template and it's history to understand what is going on and why it is set up that way. FaviFake (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FaviFake: I think either option is fine. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the image should be reverted to anything that looks vaguely like a nut, if it can be displayed with no link. It is distracting that the cursor changes when moving the mouse over that part of the nutshell, and the mouse pointer change suggests that something useful will occur if the link is examined. However, in the context in which nutshells are used, the link is a misleading distraction. Consider WP:BLP. There are three boxes at the top and the first two work as expected (they are just text with useful links and decorative icons), but the linked nutshell in the third is confusing. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With 1 opposer, 2 supporters, and 2 neutral it seems there's a small consensus to use the PNG icon? Or does anyone else want to chime in? FaviFake (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]