Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Tnavbar"
From Conservapedia
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
IMO this should be shortened to include only the link back to the template, not to its talk-page or its edite-option. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 12:31, August 9, 2021 (EDT) | IMO this should be shortened to include only the link back to the template, not to its talk-page or its edite-option. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 12:31, August 9, 2021 (EDT) | ||
:Well, leaving a link to the editing option is fine, because it's not in the <nowiki>[[]]</nowiki> fashion (it's actually impossible to directly link to an article's "action=edit" on normal pages), and thus won't be tracked in the CP database in terms of which page links to where. And since the template which is linked to by itself obvious exists (a tautology), the provided link to the "action=edit" isn't a link to a non-existent page (technically "option", since it's just a different option for an article, just as "action=history" is a different option) anyways. However, I do agree that the link to the template's talk page should be removed to avoid a massive number of unintended red links. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 12:36, August 9, 2021 (EDT) | :Well, leaving a link to the editing option is fine, because it's not in the <nowiki>[[]]</nowiki> fashion (it's actually impossible to directly link to an article's "action=edit" on normal pages), and thus won't be tracked in the CP database in terms of which page links to where. And since the template which is linked to by itself obvious exists (a tautology), the provided link to the "action=edit" isn't a link to a non-existent page (technically "option", since it's just a different option for an article, just as "action=history" is a different option) anyways. However, I do agree that the link to the template's talk page should be removed to avoid a massive number of unintended red links. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 12:36, August 9, 2021 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::Agreed. But while linking to the editing option may be fine, I think it is absolutely unnecessary... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 12:53, August 9, 2021 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 16:53, August 9, 2021
I recommend a minor change to help this look a little nicer. Before [{{fullurl: put <span class="plainlinks"> and after </span>] put </span>; that will remove the little arrow icon that makes the edit link look like an external link. ~ Webster (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
IMO this should be shortened to include only the link back to the template, not to its talk-page or its edite-option. --AugustO (talk) 12:31, August 9, 2021 (EDT)
- Well, leaving a link to the editing option is fine, because it's not in the [[]] fashion (it's actually impossible to directly link to an article's "action=edit" on normal pages), and thus won't be tracked in the CP database in terms of which page links to where. And since the template which is linked to by itself obvious exists (a tautology), the provided link to the "action=edit" isn't a link to a non-existent page (technically "option", since it's just a different option for an article, just as "action=history" is a different option) anyways. However, I do agree that the link to the template's talk page should be removed to avoid a massive number of unintended red links. —
LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Monday, 12:36, August 9, 2021 (EDT)
