Difference between revisions of "User talk:Catwheezle"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Fowl (Created page with " Can you fix up Template:Unsigned2 like you did with Template:Unsigned? :> ~~~~") |
imported>Catwheezle (rm inclusion) |
||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Can you fix up [[Template:Unsigned2]] like you did with [[Template:Unsigned]]? :> --- [[User:Fowl|Fowl]] 19:22, 22 February 2012 (EST) | Can you fix up [[Template:Unsigned2]] like you did with [[Template:Unsigned]]? :> --- [[User:Fowl|Fowl]] 19:22, 22 February 2012 (EST) | ||
:Sure... but I guess we should document what the difference is between the two, and why each one should be used. So, uh... what's the difference, and what's this new one for? | |||
:...*reads about safesubst* Hrm. So it looks like a safesubst wrapper around template:unsigned. Why not just put safesubst into template:unsigned? I don't understand! --[[User:Catwheezle|Catwheezle]] 20:06, 22 February 2012 (EST) | |||
::Unsigned template goes username|date, which if you're copy & pasting from a history you have to switch them around, with unsigned2 you just have to put a pipe inbetween the date and name and you're good. Also I just noticed the description on unsigned is more true for unsigned2: "You can copy the username and date right out of the edit history, to get something like" | |||
:: --- [[User:Fowl|Fowl]] 20:31, 22 February 2012 (EST) | |||
::: Yeah, I just wasn't understanding safesubst, I think. So what this actually does, it just flips the args, then puts in an unsigned template, with the properties the right way round: it's an invisible shim. Nice! I'm wondering if there's an even nicer way though, that lets us get away with making Template:Unsigned autodetect which way round they are, without needing another template helper. *rummages* --[[User:Catwheezle|Catwheezle]] 21:38, 22 February 2012 (EST) | |||
::::I looked into this, I think it will require a lot of [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:StringFunctions#.23explode: string exploding] so its probably not a great idea D: we could just switch them now and fix them as we see them --- [[User:Fowl|Fowl]] 21:51, 22 February 2012 (EST) | |||
::::Oh, ye of little faith. | |||
::::: OK, I've moved this discussion to the [[:Creation Kit:Community Portal/Organization#Template:Unsigned|community portal]], because it got interesting and deserved more to read it. --[[User:Catwheezle|Catwheezle]] 03:13, 23 February 2012 (EST) | |||
== Catwheezle == | |||
test test {{Unsigned|Catwheezle}} | |||
Works... but there seems to be some kind of sophisticated cacheing so that if it doesn't work at some point, you can't always see. Maybe. | |||
Latest revision as of 15:36, 16 January 2014
Can you fix up Template:Unsigned2 like you did with Template:Unsigned? :> --- Fowl 19:22, 22 February 2012 (EST)
- Sure... but I guess we should document what the difference is between the two, and why each one should be used. So, uh... what's the difference, and what's this new one for?
- ...*reads about safesubst* Hrm. So it looks like a safesubst wrapper around template:unsigned. Why not just put safesubst into template:unsigned? I don't understand! --Catwheezle 20:06, 22 February 2012 (EST)
- Unsigned template goes username|date, which if you're copy & pasting from a history you have to switch them around, with unsigned2 you just have to put a pipe inbetween the date and name and you're good. Also I just noticed the description on unsigned is more true for unsigned2: "You can copy the username and date right out of the edit history, to get something like"
- --- Fowl 20:31, 22 February 2012 (EST)
- Yeah, I just wasn't understanding safesubst, I think. So what this actually does, it just flips the args, then puts in an unsigned template, with the properties the right way round: it's an invisible shim. Nice! I'm wondering if there's an even nicer way though, that lets us get away with making Template:Unsigned autodetect which way round they are, without needing another template helper. *rummages* --Catwheezle 21:38, 22 February 2012 (EST)
- I looked into this, I think it will require a lot of string exploding so its probably not a great idea D: we could just switch them now and fix them as we see them --- Fowl 21:51, 22 February 2012 (EST)
- Oh, ye of little faith.
- OK, I've moved this discussion to the community portal, because it got interesting and deserved more to read it. --Catwheezle 03:13, 23 February 2012 (EST)
Catwheezle[edit source]
test test —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]) Catwheezle
Works... but there seems to be some kind of sophisticated cacheing so that if it doesn't work at some point, you can't always see. Maybe.