Template talk:Retitle: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Tag: sourceedit |
Affirmation (talk | contribs) (Replied to CzechOut and added nowiki tags to his or her post.) Tag: sourceedit |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:This is a really great question. I can certainly understand why, if you come from another wiki, it might seeem a little strange. | :This is a really great question. I can certainly understand why, if you come from another wiki, it might seeem a little strange. | ||
:The answer lies in the way the wiki developed over the years -- details with which I won't bore you. But the long and short of it is that there's a ton of material in a 50+ year-old franchise (whose writers, incidentally, have a penchant for naming stories with nouns ''from'' their stories) that ''require'' an easy disambiguation method. Also, we tend to use DISPLAYTITLE via templates merely to add ''partial'' italicisation -- we want it to be '''''The Stones of Blood'' (TV story)''' -- a stylistic choice that matters very little to the HTML <title>. And {{tlx|retitle}} doesn't trouble the title's presentation in the <meta> keywords or the <meta> names that are shared on social media. | :The answer lies in the way the wiki developed over the years -- details with which I won't bore you. But the long and short of it is that there's a ton of material in a 50+ year-old franchise (whose writers, incidentally, have a penchant for naming stories with nouns ''from'' their stories) that ''require'' an easy disambiguation method. Also, we tend to use DISPLAYTITLE via templates merely to add ''partial'' italicisation -- we want it to be '''''The Stones of Blood'' (TV story)''' -- a stylistic choice that matters very little to the HTML <nowiki><title></nowiki>. And {{tlx|retitle}} doesn't trouble the title's presentation in the <nowiki><meta></nowiki> keywords or the <nowiki><meta></nowiki> names that are shared on social media. | ||
:Thus, our emphasis has always been on the '''''editors{{'}}'' ease of use'''. Several other retitling templates sprang up following this one -- some fairly elaborate and more obviously time-saving than simple, little {{tlx|retitle}}. But even this most basic of titling templates is better for editors because, unlike DISPLAYTITLE: | :Thus, our emphasis has always been on the '''''editors{{'}}'' ease of use'''. Several other retitling templates sprang up following this one -- some fairly elaborate and more obviously time-saving than simple, little {{tlx|retitle}}. But even this most basic of titling templates is better for editors because, unlike DISPLAYTITLE: | ||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:So it's easier to type accurately. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}} 21:21: Thu 14 Jul 2016</span> | :So it's easier to type accurately. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}} 21:21: Thu 14 Jul 2016</span> | ||
::I understand. Thanks for your response. I’ve a suggestion, too: Maybe you should move [[Template:Retitle]] to [[Template:Title]]. “Title” is simpler, harder, better, faster, and stronger than “retitle.” You could either leave a redirect, so that people will just start to use {{tlf|title}} <em>now</em>, or you can <em>not</em> leave a redirect and use a bot (<i>e.g.</i>, [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser|AutoWikiBrowser]], arguably the best wiki bot) to change “<nowiki>{{Retitle|</nowiki> to <nowiki>{{Title|</nowiki> (or, using RegEx, <nowiki>\{\{Retitle\|(.*?)\}\}</nowiki> to <nowiki>{{Title|$1}}</nowiki>; however, that’s not really necessary, or you can leave a redirect <em>and</em> use a bot. The {{tl|title}} template <em>does</em> exist, but it’s not in use anymore, so it probably won’t hurt if it were deleted. I don’t know if it’s still use, anymore, on other pages, but if it’s, you can use a bot to change instances of the {{tl|title}} template to something else. I doubt that you’ll do any of this, but hey, it’s just a suggestion.<br><font face="Papyrus"><font color="#0020C2">―</font><b>[[User:PapiDimmi|<font color="#0000A0">PapíDimmi</font>]]</b> <small><font color="#571B7E">(</font><b>[[User talk:PapiDimmi|<font color="#4AA02C">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/PapiDimmi|<font color="#4AA02C">contribs</font>]]</b><font color="#571B7E">)</font></small></font> 21:31, July 14, 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:31, 14 July 2016
Why not just use DISPLAYTITLE?
Why is this wiki using a template which uses the DISPLAYTITLE magic word instead of just using the DISPLAYTITLE magic word? Using the DISPLAYTITLE magic word changes the source HTML title, too; i.e., what’s between the <title></title> tags in the wiki’s source code. I don’t see any benefit of using a template instead of the magic word, itself.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 18:15, July 14, 2016 (UTC)
- This is a really great question. I can certainly understand why, if you come from another wiki, it might seeem a little strange.
- The answer lies in the way the wiki developed over the years -- details with which I won't bore you. But the long and short of it is that there's a ton of material in a 50+ year-old franchise (whose writers, incidentally, have a penchant for naming stories with nouns from their stories) that require an easy disambiguation method. Also, we tend to use DISPLAYTITLE via templates merely to add partial italicisation -- we want it to be The Stones of Blood (TV story) -- a stylistic choice that matters very little to the HTML <title>. And {{retitle}} doesn't trouble the title's presentation in the <meta> keywords or the <meta> names that are shared on social media.
- Thus, our emphasis has always been on the editors' ease of use. Several other retitling templates sprang up following this one -- some fairly elaborate and more obviously time-saving than simple, little {{retitle}}. But even this most basic of titling templates is better for editors because, unlike DISPLAYTITLE:
- it's shorter
- it's an ordinary English word
- it has ordinary capitalisation
- it'll be found by autoselect when the editor types as little as
{{ret
- I understand. Thanks for your response. I’ve a suggestion, too: Maybe you should move Template:Retitle to Template:Title. “Title” is simpler, harder, better, faster, and stronger than “retitle.” You could either leave a redirect, so that people will just start to use {{title}} now, or you can not leave a redirect and use a bot (e.g., AutoWikiBrowser, arguably the best wiki bot) to change “{{Retitle| to {{Title| (or, using RegEx, \{\{Retitle\|(.*?)\}\} to {{Title|$1}}; however, that’s not really necessary, or you can leave a redirect and use a bot. The {{title}} template does exist, but it’s not in use anymore, so it probably won’t hurt if it were deleted. I don’t know if it’s still use, anymore, on other pages, but if it’s, you can use a bot to change instances of the {{title}} template to something else. I doubt that you’ll do any of this, but hey, it’s just a suggestion.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 21:31, July 14, 2016 (UTC)
- I understand. Thanks for your response. I’ve a suggestion, too: Maybe you should move Template:Retitle to Template:Title. “Title” is simpler, harder, better, faster, and stronger than “retitle.” You could either leave a redirect, so that people will just start to use {{title}} now, or you can not leave a redirect and use a bot (e.g., AutoWikiBrowser, arguably the best wiki bot) to change “{{Retitle| to {{Title| (or, using RegEx, \{\{Retitle\|(.*?)\}\} to {{Title|$1}}; however, that’s not really necessary, or you can leave a redirect and use a bot. The {{title}} template does exist, but it’s not in use anymore, so it probably won’t hurt if it were deleted. I don’t know if it’s still use, anymore, on other pages, but if it’s, you can use a bot to change instances of the {{title}} template to something else. I doubt that you’ll do any of this, but hey, it’s just a suggestion.