![]() | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Template talk:Moved discussion from redirects here. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Moved discussion to template. |
|
At the moment, it's unclear as to whether or not the guidance is to remove the content on the source page when a talk page discussion is moved. Personally, I think it'd be a better idea to hide the discussion using an expand tag, but still keep it there for reference. As a consequence, I've written a new version of the template which would have that behaviour. You can see some examples of that template in use here. Note that the template syntax is slightly breaking from the current syntax - the new syntax would be as below:
{{Moved discussion to|Destination location|Reason optionally goes here|discussion= The content of the discussion goes here. (signature 1) :I agree, but blah blah blah (signature 2) ::More discussion that's going on before the discussion was moved (signature 1) :Hey, maybe we should move this! (signature 3) }}
This then retains the content at the original location, whilst also not taking up space there, and making it very clear that the discussion has moved to a new location.
Let me know what you think! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
|link=
to make it so clicking on it doesn't take you to the arrow file. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
09:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
{{Moved discussion to|Destination|now this is the reason tag|and then the discussion has to go in here}}
, or with no reason given {{Moved discussion to|Destination|discussion=and then the discussion has to go in here}}
. Although that doesn't look as bad written down as I thought it might, in fairness. Let me know your thoughts!
Naypta ☺ |
✉ talk page |
09:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
As someone who uses {{
Moved discussion to}}
quite a bit, as long as it's strictly optional, and not the default, I don't have an objection. As background, you should be aware that not everyone interprets the "moved discussion" the way you do; for some people, or should I say in some instances, it is used to mean, "please add all future comments to the following location, and do not duplicate previous comments from here to there." In that usage, you would not want to hide anything. So, any changes you contemplate making should be fully backward-compatible (as this is not
subst'ed), as well as not break the current usage.
Also, I'm very wary of any change that requires a bot to fix existing transclusions. Please don't do that. If your new idea is a good one, and not backwards compatible, then just create {{ moved discussion to2}} or {{ moved discussion thataway}} on the model of {{ user2}}, {{ user5}}, {{ for2}}, and so on. Your brilliant idea doesn't trump everything else that's ever been done, and if it isn't a natural expansion of the existing template in a backwards-compatible way, then just create a new one. Otherwise you'll be creating a monster. Mathglot ( talk) 23:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
At {{ Please see}}, Psiĥedelisto's introduction of {{ Format linkr}} seems to have worked pretty well for removing unsightly underscores from copied URLs (excluding one issue Mdaniels5757 and Amorymeltzer are about to fix). Should we adopt it here and at Template:Moved discussion from? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 02:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
As you can see in Special:Diff/1210694622, this approach causes + signs in the title to... become space. Any idea why format linkr would do that when we don't use + signs for article title spaces on WP? Aaron Liu ( talk) 22:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
|nud=
, that will fix the issue. Just edit here to pass through that parameter, and then invoke it in that your use case.
Sdkb
talk
22:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
{{Moved discussion to|Wikipedia talk:Scripts++#High number of scripts added to /Next{{!}}nud{{=}}y}}
doesn't work. Or is there another way to passthrough that I'm not aware of?
Aaron Liu (
talk)
22:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
|nud=
. You need to edit this template so that it passes through that parameter, and then the code above will work. Does that make sense?
Sdkb
talk
22:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Template talk:Moved discussion from redirects here. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Moved discussion to template. |
|
At the moment, it's unclear as to whether or not the guidance is to remove the content on the source page when a talk page discussion is moved. Personally, I think it'd be a better idea to hide the discussion using an expand tag, but still keep it there for reference. As a consequence, I've written a new version of the template which would have that behaviour. You can see some examples of that template in use here. Note that the template syntax is slightly breaking from the current syntax - the new syntax would be as below:
{{Moved discussion to|Destination location|Reason optionally goes here|discussion= The content of the discussion goes here. (signature 1) :I agree, but blah blah blah (signature 2) ::More discussion that's going on before the discussion was moved (signature 1) :Hey, maybe we should move this! (signature 3) }}
This then retains the content at the original location, whilst also not taking up space there, and making it very clear that the discussion has moved to a new location.
Let me know what you think! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
|link=
to make it so clicking on it doesn't take you to the arrow file. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
09:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
{{Moved discussion to|Destination|now this is the reason tag|and then the discussion has to go in here}}
, or with no reason given {{Moved discussion to|Destination|discussion=and then the discussion has to go in here}}
. Although that doesn't look as bad written down as I thought it might, in fairness. Let me know your thoughts!
Naypta ☺ |
✉ talk page |
09:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
As someone who uses {{
Moved discussion to}}
quite a bit, as long as it's strictly optional, and not the default, I don't have an objection. As background, you should be aware that not everyone interprets the "moved discussion" the way you do; for some people, or should I say in some instances, it is used to mean, "please add all future comments to the following location, and do not duplicate previous comments from here to there." In that usage, you would not want to hide anything. So, any changes you contemplate making should be fully backward-compatible (as this is not
subst'ed), as well as not break the current usage.
Also, I'm very wary of any change that requires a bot to fix existing transclusions. Please don't do that. If your new idea is a good one, and not backwards compatible, then just create {{ moved discussion to2}} or {{ moved discussion thataway}} on the model of {{ user2}}, {{ user5}}, {{ for2}}, and so on. Your brilliant idea doesn't trump everything else that's ever been done, and if it isn't a natural expansion of the existing template in a backwards-compatible way, then just create a new one. Otherwise you'll be creating a monster. Mathglot ( talk) 23:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
At {{ Please see}}, Psiĥedelisto's introduction of {{ Format linkr}} seems to have worked pretty well for removing unsightly underscores from copied URLs (excluding one issue Mdaniels5757 and Amorymeltzer are about to fix). Should we adopt it here and at Template:Moved discussion from? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 02:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
As you can see in Special:Diff/1210694622, this approach causes + signs in the title to... become space. Any idea why format linkr would do that when we don't use + signs for article title spaces on WP? Aaron Liu ( talk) 22:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
|nud=
, that will fix the issue. Just edit here to pass through that parameter, and then invoke it in that your use case.
Sdkb
talk
22:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
{{Moved discussion to|Wikipedia talk:Scripts++#High number of scripts added to /Next{{!}}nud{{=}}y}}
doesn't work. Or is there another way to passthrough that I'm not aware of?
Aaron Liu (
talk)
22:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
|nud=
. You need to edit this template so that it passes through that parameter, and then the code above will work. Does that make sense?
Sdkb
talk
22:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)