User talk:ATHSE
Template:F or Template:Tt
According to the usage in the Template:Tt, there is actually no need to replace
{{f|Locomotor|{4A582744-9839-11d1-B709-00A024DDAFD1}|link}}(Locomotor={4A582744-9839-11d1-B709-00A024DDAFD1}) with
<tt>Locomotor={4A582744-9839-11d1-B709-00A024DDAFD1}</tt>(Locomotor={4A582744-9839-11d1-B709-00A024DDAFD1}).
If you just want to unlink, you can simply remove the|linkat the end, like this:
{{f|Locomotor|{4A582744-9839-11d1-B709-00A024DDAFD1} }}(Locomotor={4A582744-9839-11d1-B709-00A024DDAFD1})
- The space here(
D1} }}) exists to separate the closing}of clsid from the wiki template's}}Personally, I prefer to regard Template:F as an extended version of Template:Tt, as it conveniently allows adding
key=valueformats and toggling link inclusion. :)
- Of course, even so, when choosing between Template:F and Template:Tt, it is still necessary to distinguish based on whether the content is a Flag or regular Text.
I replaced it because we already had loco links on the page, and honestly there's no sense in every possible word being a link.
I also try to keep links far enough apart that they are obviously leading to different pages, too often I see adjacent links that are hard to distinguish.
Also I know the template tt works, but I'm crossposting from modenc2 where it doesn't, and the html tt works in both cases.
I use tt when I'm referring to a keyword but don't want it to be a link, just as an idea or point of reference, and f|link when I do a key/value pair.
Hope that clarifies my thinking?
I also agree with avoiding overly dense link formats.
I simply meant that for flags, the common practice should be to use Template:F's {{f|key(|value)(|link)}} notation.
Of course, you can choose whichever method is more convenient for you - this is just a Tip.
but I'm crossposting from modenc2 where it doesn't
Additionally, in fact, all three current wikis support Template:Tt. Did you perhaps mean Template:F? I believe the support for it should be treated as a pending issue rather than avoiding its use altogether.
Of course, the <tt> tag directly supported by MediaWiki has the best compatibility.
Redirect vs. Delete
Hi!
I appreciate your desire to clean up, but please take the impact of a deletion into account before you remove redirects.For pages like "Garbage King work 02", it's perfectly fine. The page existed only shortly and it was never a real content page in the first place. Yes to deletion on that.
But for the numbered pages, you have to realize that those have existed for 19 years and in many cases had different content of different parts of the The Guide on them.
So there's a very, very, very real possibility that someone out there is linking to a particular version of the flag page.Think about it: Imagine you had a page Mushroom for a boolean flag Mushroom on weapons, which determines whether this weapon shoots mushrooms, and a page Mushroom I for a string flag Mushroom on terrain objects, where you can enter the color of the mushrooms growing on a rock or tree.
Now in some forum, some dude is having problems because Mushroom=yes isn't working on his tree.
ModEnc has "Mushroom" explaining the usage on weapons and "Mushroom I" explaining the usage on terrain objects.
Which one do you link to?
Mushroom I. Because that's the one explaining the flag the user wants to use, that's the one teaching him that on a terrain type, he has to use Mushroom=Blue instead of Mushroom=yes. That's the one helping them.
Every link like that is castrated if, after 19 years of that page existing, we suddenly delete it with no instruction to the user where to go from there.
It's just broken.
It used to work, now it doesn't.Redirects are how we prevent that.
If a link taught people how to use Mushroom on trees for the past ten years, and you merge Mushroom I into Mushroom and turn it into a redirect, then that link will continue to teach people how to use Mushroom on trees for the next ten years.If a regular content page is merged into something else, usually, a redirect to the new location of the information is the best course of action.
In addition, there might be internal pages linking to something.
That's easier to catch, but still: Why break internal links if we don't have to?I know that some numbered pages have gone the way of the Dodo, but I'm really just waiting for the last few numbered pages to be merged and then I'll have a bot make sure that all previous numbered pages point to their parent page.
(Which also means deleting them now is pointless, because they'll be resurrected in the end.)Again: There's nothing wrong with deleting spam or useless pages.
It's just proper content pages that shouldn't become dead ends all of a sudden.Well I understand that it might be used elsewhere, but that doesn't mean it should be, or that it can't be fixed.
I'm looking at it like if we remove it now, we expose any erroneous usage, they'd show up as red links right? That would give us editors ample warning of something to fix.
That said, I don't think I've actually encountered a single page that uses numbered versions of pages.
- Given that, in the meantime, I have realized that collectively, you didn't actually merge the numbered pages, but simply discarded them, I had to unearth all of them anyway.
- Same with many of the parent pages - the vast majority have not been rewritten, they simply had their import markers removed, turning them into straight rips off The Guide.
- Basically, there are hundreds of pages to be reviewed, so the numbered pages are staying for a while anyway.
I only delete numbered pages when the content has been merged into other pages, or the page itself is duplicated (or near enough)...
In the case of the last delete, the page literally had the same content between base and "I" with different wording.