The Template Tags list is far from complete, and anyone wishing to add previously undocumented tags to it are certainly welcome. However, before creating a new page for a template tag, please follow the Codex guidelines for creating new pages. The guidelines are especially important here, as more than just the Template Tags page must be modified to list them.
Thanks.
-Kaf 21:44, 23 Jan 2005 (GMT)
skippy 20:09, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC): Should we use transclusion, like Carthik's use of {{Stub}}, to include the Tags_Without_Parameters and Passing_Tag_Parameters blocks inline on each template tag?
skippy 13:09, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC): Do we want the links to sub-pages to clearly indicate their provenance: Template_Tags/Some_Tag; or should we present a less cluttered link to the reader: Some Tag
ChrisL 07:31, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC): I'd vote not to have the clutter on every page for every tag, myself. As for the links, it makes sense to me to use the less cluttered link form-- I don't think it is really material to the general reader to indicate the subpage? Just my .02
The stub thingy is what is called a BoilerPlate, I guess, and is useful to add the same piece of text over and over again, on several pages, so Skippy, I think that sounds like a good idea.
Carthik (not logged in -- public computer)
Close to a finish line of some sort here. Yeah, I know, documentation is never finished. Nevertheless, over the past few days I've gone through every tag and performed a lot of clean-up. Some tags need a few more helpful examples, but at this point I want to focus on standardizing the little details in tag page layout, such as making sure parameter options are in li lists instead of just mentioned in the dt, and setting boolean (true/false) values the same throughout (TRUE, or true, but not both).
Input appreciated before I start the nitpick portion of my tag page edits. -Kaf 08:43, 3 Jan 2005 (GMT)
Oh hey, almost forgot. I'd like to suggest a couple mods to Template_Tags and associated ephemera:
Yea? No way Jose? -Kaf 09:02, 3 Jan 2005 (GMT)
The template list is looking great, but we have a little quandry. Is this the template list for 1.2 or 1.5?
Lorelle 05:08, 4 Feb 2005 (GMT)
How do you recommend separating the old from the new? I see there is the use of Deprecated, which could mean no longer good for even v1.2 or is that for 1.5? I think having them astericked or highlighted in a very simple way would be good. Lorelle 01:23, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT)
Kaf, what do you think of USER:MDAWaffe/get_some_templates (Include Tags) for inclusion under the General Tags section? Didn't know what to call it. "Include Tags"? --MDAWaffe 00:46, 8 Feb 2005 (GMT)
:) --MDAWaffeI just thought I'd pitch and say that maybe we need a definition for what a template tag is, and maybe we could agree that a template tag is that which can be used by the user to directly acheive some textual output on a page displayed to the world. This would exclude functions whose output can be used by other functions and functions that return a boolean, for example. The distinction needs to be made since it would be nice if the "templatetags" are usable by a normal non php-geek, while the php geek can lookup functions and decide how best to use them to cook her soup. Usually template tags are contained in the template-functions-x.php or functions-general.php or functions.php (in that order)
Maybe we can call the other useful functions just that - "Useful Functions". Other names could be "Utility Functions" or "Advanced Tags". The is_* functions could be called "Identifier Functions". get_some_templates functions could be called "Include Tags" (which is nice) :)
Nomenclature! I'll avoid too long a comment, as I've been accused in the past (for good reason) of placing far more emphasis on the underlying subject matter than may be absolutely necessary. Carthik's delineation is pretty much mine, in that a template tag represents the display of a blog's information, whereas a "useful function" deals with blog and template structure. However, I do think we should retain official WP terminology and refer to each as a group of tags. So my take would be:
I like the sound of "Advanced Tags," but perhaps "Utility" describes them better.
-Kaf 18:11, 8 Feb 2005 (GMT)
<?php ?> is proper form. Beyond these, if we can find a way of making functions like the is_* set clear to the casual user without referring to them as tags, I say do it. It's just that by calling them something like Ident functions (or is_* functions, blech!), the connection with other user template "tags" is lost. Perhaps a good thing? <?php the_ID(); ?>. Originally, I think tags were called "tags" because they tagged what they surrounded (or their postion in the case of something like <br />) for some, specific formatting. PHP tags came along and extended the definition: "tag this position for the inclusion of something". But I still don't see is_ as being tags. They don't tag their position for anything. In fact, they don't even have a postion in the final HTML document. They're used in flow control only.if ( is_ ) tags what it surrounds for inclusion, based on some criterion. So I suppose they can perfectly well be called tags also. The is_ are never used without if so maybe "Conditional Tags"? --MDAWaffe 06:54, 9 Feb 2005 (GMT)
:) -Kaf 18:03, 9 Feb 2005 (GMT)If you're really into history, check out this discussion page's to see what was here before. It was just a note about various articles now available from Templates. Naturally, all discussion about them should go on their discussion pages. --MDAWaffe 20:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've added a couple links up top (rather than in the General Tags section). Mainly, I didn't quite know where to put them. If they are better served somewhere else in the article, please move them. --MDAWaffe 21:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What do you think about a list of the tags people use about most typically: wp_list_cats, wp_get_archives, wp_list_pages, wp_get_links. The listing ones are the ones that pop into my head. It'd be nice to put those together so that people can more easily contrast them. If you look Talk:Template Tags/wp_list_pages, for example and many places in the forums, it becomes clear that new users might find figuring out what each can do a little confusing. Or is this better on a separate, How-To-ish page? --MDAWaffe 11:07, 10 Feb 2005 (GMT)
Looks like wp-plugins.org is dead. It expired July 16th and has not been renewed.