Template talk:Template link with subst and parameters

message: An older version of  supported only
one example parameter for the specified template, more
parameters had to be separated by .
This is still necessary for more than three parameters,
but otherwise the direct approach now also works. Omniplex 19:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical 

message: Are there any objections to removing the spaces () found just inside the opening and closing brackets?  This template's peers , , and  do not have them. ×Meegs 22:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see  does have them, though. ×Meegs 22:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spaces 

message: Please move the template's documentation to a seperate /doc page. (Replace all of the documentation here to the /doc page) MC10  Sign here! 04:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: . Could you move things over from this page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation 

message: I need a fifth parameter for one example. And the protection template should really be on the documentation page (I have added it there). Could you please copy the following text to do these two minor things:
{{subst:Tlsp}}


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser  (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You should be able to fake this with something like  → , right? I'm a bit loath to change the signature of this template since it's conceivable that someone was relying on the special behavior of the fifth parameter displaying the "etc.", right? Amalthea 15:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Conceivable but highly unlikely. If he were, he should have left a warning. Templates are updated once in a while, and this was to be expected. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe, but I'm not going to look through the 1500+ transclusions. We could categorize the ones that are displaying the etc. parameter. Can't the workaround be used though? Amalthea 15:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  People should definitely not rely on the "etc.". Nor do I see any conceivable use. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

text:  It is by far more likely that nobody expected this template would need five parameters. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well yeah, obviously it was built for four parameters. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if someone did intentionally use the "etc." though, with a template that supports a quite high number of parameters for example. If that someone was smart he supplied "etc." or "..." as a fifth parameter himself, but if he just used "X" or something then he'll end up with a very weird result. I for one am not comfortable with just changing the signature of a template and hoping for the best, I'd much rather do it in a controlled way, by conditional categorization and purging of all transcluding pages, and then showing a big red error if a sixth parameter is supplied. We can also wait and see what Martin says, he's bound to show up here eventually since he's still diligently fulfilling editprotected requests.But seriously, can't that workaround be used? Amalthea 16:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't know. Was a good idea, but looks like a perversion rather than like a workaround to me. We have a template here that can take as many parameters as needed, so that's the best course of action, IMO. Debresser (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry. I made the request before any objections were raised, in utter faith that there is no feasable reason not to make the edit. And I still am convinced of that. Debresser (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think Skomorokh meant to imply otherwise. I certainly would have done the same. Amalthea 07:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Whoops, didn't read this before I made the change. I'm outputting an error now if too many parameters are passed instead of writing "etc.", which leaves no reservations in the future to just extend the number of parameters as needed without much ado. You were right, by the way, there weren't any actual usages of the "etc." feature. Amalthea 07:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, you restored the editprotected request? You need more parameters right away? Amalthea 11:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have run the test yourself, so you know I use 5 and even 6 of them. And it is a good idea in any case. Debresser (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:   5 and 6 this morning, that's what I meant with "made the change" above.  is already happy. Amalthea 12:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. Then it's ok, I guess. Debresser (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Please change the link subst to subst, as the link changed. Thanks! Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link change 

message: Please change  subst: to subst:. This is basically making the colons part of your delicious breakfest of the link. I would request this also be done to .
Of course, this isn't really neccesary, I just always prefered subst: as the text over subst, since it looks a bit nicer and cleaner to me.
LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!)  02:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If it isn't necessary, then why put stress on the servers for a purely cosmetic change? →Στc. 02:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

text: We do lots of things which aren't strictly necessary but result in an impovement. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a good idea. At present,  has two blue links which are distinct because of the intervening colon, but putting the colon inside the first will create a situation where two blue links butt up together (the tlsp template isn't used on article pages, but if it were, having the links close together would violate WP:LINK#General points on linking style, fifth bullet). --Redrose64 (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

text: No consensus. Anomie⚔ 01:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  (optional; no need to do this) Edit request from LikeLakers2, 19 October 2011 

message: , unfortunately, switch to  broke support of  and  in parameters. See /testcases (at the moment sandbox has the version before ). I've noticed because instructions at Speedy CfD broke:
—⁠andrybak (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: uses a nowiki on all of its parameters, but it does have an italics option. Is it the end of the world to switch uses Primefac (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  is also affected, for example at Template:Userwhisperback/doc. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

text:  However,  seems to be not affected: Special:Permalink/951581404. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, technically it uses a #tag:nowiki instead of the  pairing. Not sure why it lets through templates but not HTML. Primefac (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Another CfD-related example: Template:Cfdnotice/doc. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rolled things back until it can get sorted out. Primefac (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for tag var broke