This page is an archive of the Trash compactor discussion about the future of Wookieepedia's coverage of the topic(s) listed below, including whether or not to delete or redirect the relevant page(s). This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the relevant talk pages or in the Senate Hall forum rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Delete. —spookywillowwtalk 17:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Template:Wi (history - links - logs - delete - protect)
As I was trying to find a way to propose a CT that would follow on the discussion started here, but I feared the prospect would only give me a massive headache to try to accommodate every side of the issue while proposing something that would update the relevant passage in the Manual of Style. I thought to myself "there should be an easier way to deal with this", and not even a minute after thinking that, I found Help:Pipe trick on Wikipedia and Help:Links/Wikitext#Pipe_tricks on Fandom.
We all know about pipelinking, but I had never heard about "pipe tricks" before today. Simply, when source editing a page, if you write a link like [[Wikipedia:Article|]], the editor itself will save as [[Wikipedia:Article|Article]] (it will even display it correctly in preview before saving the edit). Thus, I believe that having a template doing a similar job than the pipe trick seems really unnecessary.
I'd recommend other editors to check out the Mediawiki help page, and learn about all the way to use pipe trick, as they work perfectly fine on Wookieepedia. Furthermore, it should be worth updating the MOS linking section to mention this particular pipe trick.
Delete
- NanoLuukeCloning Facility 15:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- 01miki10 Open comlink 16:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- The difference between
{{Wi|garlic}}and[[Wikipedia:garlic|garlic]]was substantial enough to me to warrant keeping this template around. The difference between{{Wi|garlic}}and[[Wikipedia:garlic|]], not so much tbh. Imperators II(Talk) 20:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) - Definitely prefer gone altogether, though do want to note for record that since - per the SH - this violates the linking clauses already in policy, it luckily cannot be forced into SAs of folks who do not wish for it (or really status articles in general; due to needing to follow current policy); unless this is later brought into policy in and of itself. Bit of a weird case to have a possibility of a template remaining in existence that doesnt align with the MOS, though, on a general note since policy explicitly calls out usage of [[Wikipedia: In said case, essentially renders it a in-process template for non-SA pages only (until a future amendment of templates for plainlinking); may have been better off as a policy vote rather than a TC, dunno.—spookywillowwtalk 05:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to workshop a CT, and it was a mess. It needs to update an existing clause that mandate every Wikipedia link to behave a specific way, which meant asking the community if they wanted for Wi to be mandatory as well or not, to be forbidden from specific uses (prose vs others), and to account for the fact that Wi should not be used in cases where formatting the pipelink with italics was necessary (aka half the time we use a Wikipedia pipelink). So after I discovered the pipe trick, I went with the path of less resistance. And quite frankly, I'm done with this, if someone care about this template, let them do the CT. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 08:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, fair, yeah. The primary reason for my text wall above is because I've noticed this template being copy-edited into status articles already when the linking clauses onsite still forbid it; to me, this should not be done until such passes CT. I don't particularly care if it does ultimately make it to CT or not (or whether some people choose to use it on their own pages); only that it cannot be forced on status articles of any sort, especially if the nominator disagrees, until the [[Wikipedia:-only wording is amended in policy.—spookywillowwtalk 21:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to workshop a CT, and it was a mess. It needs to update an existing clause that mandate every Wikipedia link to behave a specific way, which meant asking the community if they wanted for Wi to be mandatory as well or not, to be forbidden from specific uses (prose vs others), and to account for the fact that Wi should not be used in cases where formatting the pipelink with italics was necessary (aka half the time we use a Wikipedia pipelink). So after I discovered the pipe trick, I went with the path of less resistance. And quite frankly, I'm done with this, if someone care about this template, let them do the CT. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 08:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Lewisr (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- The normal way of linking to Wikipedia never bothered me too much, though good to know about the pipe trick. Zed42
(talk) 10:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC) - Definitely prefer keeping templates such as this out of prose, also for the sake of consistency. Bonzane10
16:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC) - Cade
Calrayn 23:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC) - Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Fan26 (Talk) 03:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Booply (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep
- The template is fewer characters. I know some people think templates look ugly in prose, but I think the template is just faster. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 16:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC) - — Commander Bhatoa (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- JMAS Hey, it's me! 05:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
