Template talk:Section-stub
From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Reason parameter[edit]
Should we just remove it? It breaks stuff, according to Doodle. --Idris (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- I wondered why people kept using that, thanks Idris. As for the breaking stuff, adding "|reason=" to the verify and citation needed templates would cause the explanation to not show up on mouseover, so it basically was prevent the template from working as intended. - Doodleplex 01:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've undone your edit to the template usage guide for now, because it fails to properly explain proper usage without "|reason=". I'd wait until we come to consensus on how to handle it before making any edits. So, to be clear, you're saying that "|reason=" doesn't break this template, it breaks others that people mistakenly use it on? --Idris (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- It doesn't break this template no. After poking it a bit, it appears "|reason=" works only if the page type isn't specified, but if it specified, it's redundantly unnecessary and the same as putting "| name = Bob" on a page simply named "Bob". - Doodleplex 02:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that it's redundant, but I'm not sure about unnecessary. Not everyone will specify a page type -- I often don't simply due to being unsure of the correct values -- and it's not immediately clear how to make the reason display if you don't add the page type. "reason=" is an obvious thing to try, so I think it's worth keeping in the template. Perhaps a better fix to the other templates would be to simply add an optional reason parameter to them? --Idris (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- I think the page in general does need to be re-written so people know they only have to put in "|reason=" if they don't know what page type to use. As for the other templates, I'd wager they were set up to mimic the ones used on Wikipedia and I honestly don't want to poke them, the number of people who did "reason=" on those was a grand total of 3, 2 for verify and one for citation. - Doodleplex 20:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- I don't have time tonight, but I'll rewrite the guide on this template later. I'll also take a look at verify and citation, see if I can add a redundant |reason= to them; if not, I'll just reword their guides too. :) By the way, I wouldn't worry too much about people using "reason=" even when they have specified page type; it won't break anything. The only case where things go wrong is if you leave out page type AND "reason=". --Idris (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- I think the page in general does need to be re-written so people know they only have to put in "|reason=" if they don't know what page type to use. As for the other templates, I'd wager they were set up to mimic the ones used on Wikipedia and I honestly don't want to poke them, the number of people who did "reason=" on those was a grand total of 3, 2 for verify and one for citation. - Doodleplex 20:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that it's redundant, but I'm not sure about unnecessary. Not everyone will specify a page type -- I often don't simply due to being unsure of the correct values -- and it's not immediately clear how to make the reason display if you don't add the page type. "reason=" is an obvious thing to try, so I think it's worth keeping in the template. Perhaps a better fix to the other templates would be to simply add an optional reason parameter to them? --Idris (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- It doesn't break this template no. After poking it a bit, it appears "|reason=" works only if the page type isn't specified, but if it specified, it's redundantly unnecessary and the same as putting "| name = Bob" on a page simply named "Bob". - Doodleplex 02:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've undone your edit to the template usage guide for now, because it fails to properly explain proper usage without "|reason=". I'd wait until we come to consensus on how to handle it before making any edits. So, to be clear, you're saying that "|reason=" doesn't break this template, it breaks others that people mistakenly use it on? --Idris (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
