Wikipedia talk:Full meta links

message: The scope of this proposal is unclear to me. Who are "readers"? Are we talking about AfD discussions? Article talk pages? Both? Melchoir 01:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

message: :::: Er.  Oops.  Alright, I'll hold off; sorry. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 04:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I'm not a dev (at least not a MediaWiki dev :-). But I don't think that a lot of templates is a problem. Using the same template on many pages might be a problem. Consider also that we now have a redirect page for every shortcut. So the existence of the templates is not a problem. I also think the number of 1'000 templates is a bit too high. Are there that much shurtcuts on Wikipedia:Shortcuts? --Ligulem 23:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you add into WP: Wikipedia:Shortcuts to talk pages and WP:WPR, I wouldn't be surprised. There's a hell of a lot. And the thing is, if this catches on (which is the intention, I assume), then they will be listed on loads of pages. A template is different from a redirect as the template is transcluded (server load) whereas a redirect, well, redirects (less server load). I'm not an expert by any means, and I'm not opposed, I just want a dev's comments before something of this scale starts up. Snoutwood (tóg) 23:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, actually, that's a pretty good point. I wish I'd thought of that. He's right, the shortcut problem is a great way to get newbies to read the policies (or at least glance at them). The question is one of whether or not they'll really read them, but then if clicking on a link is too much work then they won't read them anyways. If the concern is that they'll have read the policies and not know the shortcut, I think that that's a fairly rare newbie phenomena and can easily be solved by clicking on the link. Snoutwood (tóg) 00:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, I wish I'd thought of that. Snoutwood (tóg) 00:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I entirely agree with all of this--I personally feel the idea is quite counterproductive. I proposed the template with the case paramaters (which is now more or less moot due to server problems and the poor substing) because the guy who proposed this (I keep forgetting his nick) was intent upon creating an unbelievable number of templates, which I thought was quite a bad idea. Now, I more or less agree that we should just let this idea go -- at least until the subst'ing problem can be cured (though even then it might not be too bright). AmiDaniel (Talk) 01:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's what I think: you have a very heartfelt idea that's brilliant for newbies and I heartily encourage you to continue on the newbie-helping path. Good on ya. But here're the downsides: it's harder for the more seasoned lads, it's going to increase server load, and it doesn't really help understanding of the policies. (Aside: a horribly frustrating thing that I've come across a few times is when there's someone who hasn't actually read the policy, but thinks they understand it after reading a one-sentence summary and consistently manipulate it to suit their opinions.) Please do continue to use this style when newbies are present, although I wouldn't recommend through templates. If you really want to, maybe create a few of the ones you use most in your userspace and subst them in. Also, feel free to post an enhancement request at bugzilla, at the very least it'll provide a forum for the devs to comment if they so choose. Anyway, that's my opinion. On the subject of the less-technically inclined: Once upon a time, I was was one of those, and I think that they just have to learn. Wikipedia is very helpful if you're reasonable, or so I've found. They can always ask, no bother whatsoever. Send 'em to me. On the subject of those with agendas: well, we'll always have to deal with them, and we'll show them the policies until we're blue in the face (kindly, I might add), and if they're still spam-wielding, tripe-filled, and opinionated, then they'll be blocked, sadly. That's really the only thing we can do, and I'm unsure that this policy/technical development/template suggestion will help them to learn the Way of the Wiki. It's a good thought, though. Snoutwood (tóg) 05:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not using tabs? (Gasp!) I can't imagine anybody using wikipedia not with FireFox tabs.  I usually have so Manny tabs open when I browse.  Yeah Tlogmer makes a good point that not all wikipedians are young and know what they are doing, but people who have a personal stake in an article may easily violate WP:NPOV  When we talk about a policy we should use the short but when we tell somebody about the policy we should make it out in full.  Snoutwood should consult WP:NPA calling you a newbie-helper.  It's not quite a Personal attack but is getting close.  You could always WP:BR or use WP:AWB (if you have 500+ edits or you can suggest this fix be programed into AWB) to fix the short hand.  I would be in favor a a special Pipe trickfor shorthand to long hand. (also i usually use the shortcut to find the right link in preview but I'm leaving it in shorthand for Irony).  WP:SHORT says the short is for the go box.  I don't even know if we are supposed to link to pages using it.  Anyway if you could get a dev to expand the piped trick to change  to Requests for arbitration or Requests for arbitration then i would be thrilled.  It would be useful to expand the piped trick to fallow the redirect and change to the real name.  or at lest make change  to WP:ACN so that a hover over mouse will give the name of the link.  you can suggest this for the next release of Wiki Server software or whatever we call it.--E-Bod 06:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, how is "newbie-helper" a personal attack? Helping newbies rocks. We're founded on helping new people. When people have questions, we answer them and try to help out. I honestly don't understand how helping new people could be anything but a good thing. Snoutwood (tóg) 06:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I couldn't see it as an attack, either; don't worry. =) The pipetrick suggestion is great; thanks.  I'll take it to dev. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 06:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Actually, I'm a bit busy, and I don't know exactly where to go (bug reports doesn't seem like the right place).  I'll leave it for now, unless someone else wants to ask. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 06:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you list it on bugzilla, it doesn't have to be a bug report. It's also the place to ask for MediaWiki changes and enhancements. There's loads of those on there. Snoutwood (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion from this page 

message: See m:Help:Substitution#Optional substitution.  There's a workaround for the substing problem.  The following code would do what's desired:

To subst, you would need to use .  If you don't subst, you would use the usual .  Try it with User:Simetrical/Temporary subst test template:
* produces
**Rabbits are tasty.
* produces
**
Alternatively, if it's okay for the template to always be substed, you could go with the more elegant
{{ subst:#switch: 
|case a: foo
|case b: bar
|. . .
}}
This would behave incorrectly if not substed.  Try User:Simetrical/Temporary subst test template 2:
* produces
**Rabbits are tasty.
* produces
**
I'm not going to comment on the idea itself, which I'm ambivalent about, but I don't think there are serious technical difficulties with substing.  (And frankly, I'm not sure substing is necessary.   can't be used too much more than shortcuts, and it's generally not substed nowadays.  Has an actual paid dev—Brion or Tim—been asked whether the server load would be okay?) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note on substing 

message: As of this writing, this proposal has been tagged rejected and I hope it will stay that way. On the offchance that discussion revives, I'd like to hammer another nail in the coffin. 
Shortcuts assume that you have read the page in question -- policy or essay. These pages are often quite complex and say much more than their titles alone. Indeed I'd say that some important pages are rather obscurely titled. 
If I refer, say, to WP:NOR then I assume you have a good understanding of the contents of this page. I do link to WP:NOR on the offchance that you have not, in which case you have an opportunity to cure. If you don't recognize the abbreviation straight off, then I'd really rather you followed the link and refreshed your memory. I don't want to attempt to summarize the page in question -- either in my own words or merely by page title. I'd prefer that you followed a shortcut link than read a full page title and thought you knew what it meant. John Reid 01:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 -- Omniplex 11:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejected for good reason 

message: I hate seeing those elitist insider shortcuts. Why do I have to download a whole other
page just to find out what those ten or so bytes mean?
What if I'm reading offline?
Would the <refereces /> policy allow such
gobbledygook? Unbecoming of an encyclopedia! Jidanni 19:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hate elitist shortcuts