Template talk:Moved discussion to

Hiding the discussion at the source page

At the moment, it's unclear as to whether or not the guidance is to remove the content on the source page when a talk page discussion is moved. Personally, I think it'd be a better idea to hide the discussion using an expand tag, but still keep it there for reference. As a consequence, I've written a new version of the template which would have that behaviour. You can see some examples of that template in use here. Note that the template syntax is slightly breaking from the current syntax - the new syntax would be as below:

{{Moved discussion to|Destination location|Reason optionally goes here|discussion=
The content of the discussion goes here. (signature 1)
:I agree, but blah blah blah (signature 2)
::More discussion that's going on before the discussion was moved (signature 1)
:Hey, maybe we should move this! (signature 3)
}}

This then retains the content at the original location, whilst also not taking up space there, and making it very clear that the discussion has moved to a new location.

Let me know what you think! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: I like this! It'll take a little more effort to use, but in many cases it'll be very justified. One question: Can this be implemented without breaking the current transclusions of the template? Also, I have some hesitation about the formatting adjustments — for consistency with similar templates, I'd prefer the text remain unbolded/without purple (which is unclear and seems a little like a link) and the arrow the same size. I'm also going to add |link= to make it so clicking on it doesn't take you to the arrow file. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: thanks! Fair comment about the potential for confusion with regard to the purple "moved" text - I'll turn that back to the standard. As to not breaking the current transclusions, there's a few options I see: either a) this new version could be moved somewhere else, say "Moved discussion away"; b) the old version could be moved to, say, "Moved discussion to/legacy", and a bot could be written to update the old links; or c) technically this change could be implemented in such a way as to make it entirely backwards compatible. However, c could result in clunky usage when trying to use the discussion hiding functionality, as you'd need to do something like {{Moved discussion to|Destination|now this is the reason tag|and then the discussion has to go in here}}, or with no reason given {{Moved discussion to|Destination|discussion=and then the discussion has to go in here}}. Although that doesn't look as bad written down as I thought it might, in fairness. Let me know your thoughts! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: I had the initial thought that listing the reason under the discussion wasn't ideal, and that it'd be better to have it up top, like I think we do for other templates. So if that would help with backwards compatibility, I think we should absolutely do it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: okay, I think I've got a backwards-compatible way of doing it now! I've modified the example in my original post to show the new, backwards-compatible syntax, and you can see an example of the compatibility here. That should leave all current transcluded templates functioning as expected! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool! I sent out an invite to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability#Discussion at Template talk:Moved discussion to#Hiding the discussion at the source page, but I'm about 80% sure that's just me talking to myself haha. So it might be good to bring in some folks from elsewhere to get a few more eyes on this. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I've put a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates, so hopefully there'll be some input from over there - failing that, I'll copy it over to the village pump after a while and see if anyone else there wants to contribute. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Naypta, I recommend turning the sandbox/test page into a proper /testcases page. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Andrybak: thanks very much for the pointer! This is the first "major" change I've made to a wiki template, so I'm still learning the ropes :) I've created a testcase page over there which I think demonstrates what's required. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ye! 35.1.86.7 (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

As someone who uses {{Moved discussion to}} quite a bit, as long as it's strictly optional, and not the default, I don't have an objection. As background, you should be aware that not everyone interprets the "moved discussion" the way you do; for some people, or should I say in some instances, it is used to mean, "please add all future comments to the following location, and do not duplicate previous comments from here to there." In that usage, you would not want to hide anything. So, any changes you contemplate making should be fully backward-compatible (as this is not subst'ed), as well as not break the current usage.

Also, I'm very wary of any change that requires a bot to fix existing transclusions. Please don't do that. If your new idea is a good one, and not backwards compatible, then just create {{moved discussion to2}} or {{moved discussion thataway}} on the model of {{user2}}, {{user5}}, {{for2}}, and so on. Your brilliant idea doesn't trump everything else that's ever been done, and if it isn't a natural expansion of the existing template in a backwards-compatible way, then just create a new one. Otherwise you'll be creating a monster. Mathglot (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Format linkr

At {{Please see}}, Psiĥedelisto's introduction of {{Format linkr}} seems to have worked pretty well for removing unsightly underscores from copied URLs (excluding one issue Mdaniels5757 and Amorymeltzer are about to fix). Should we adopt it here and at Template:Moved discussion from? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't bode well for + signs

As you can see in Special:Diff/1210694622, this approach causes + signs in the title to... become space. Any idea why format linkr would do that when we don't use + signs for article title spaces on WP? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu, looking at the code/documentation at {{Format linkr}}, it seems to include URL decoding. There is a parameter, |nud=, that will fix the issue. Just edit here to pass through that parameter, and then invoke it in that your use case. Sdkb ^talk 22:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

{{Moved discussion to|Wikipedia talk:Scripts++#High number of scripts added to /Next{{!}}nud{{=}}y}} doesn't work. Or is there another way to passthrough that I'm not aware of? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

When {{Moved discussion to}} invokes {{Format linkr}} currently, there is no way for it to invoke it with |nud=. You need to edit this template so that it passes through that parameter, and then the code above will work. Does that make sense? Sdkb ^talk 22:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, got it.  Done Aaron Liu (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)