Template talk:Text removed

New parameters

I added a number of new parameters to make the template more flexible. That should not affect the current behaviour. — Sebastian 08:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I will document the new parameters later. — Sebastian 08:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Change "by" and "who"?

Currently, the template has two parameters "by" and "who", and I have two problems with them:

1. I never know which is which, since both refer to a "by whom" person. To fix this, I propose to change their names, e.g. to "adder" and "remover".
2. They expect the user name to be prefixed with "user:". I don't see what that's good for; I can't imagine any situation in which we would want to omit that. I therefore propose to put this into the template.

There currently aren't too many occurrences, much of whatlinkshere is indirectly transcluded, so it's better to do that now than later, and change the few occurrences manually. I'm not sure if we can use AWB for that; I haven't done such changes with that yet. — Sebastian 08:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Make what ever changes you need, AWB can update the parameter but their are so few link manually would be quicker Gnevin (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What about IP's? ,Will need an AdderIP parameter too Gnevin (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It would be nice if there was a parser function for regular expressions, so that we would not have to use two different names. (We then could write something like {{#ifregexp: {{{adder}}} = ^\d??\.\d??\.\d??\.\d??$ | [[Special:Contributions/{{{adder}}}]] | [[user:{{{adder}}}] }}.) — Sebastian 09:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the limits of ParserFunctions can be very frustrating, my attempt at a solution is User:Gnevin/sandbox5 Gnevin (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That looks good!

One thing I just realize: The contributions syntax would work just the same for registered users. So we could simplify the template and only use that for both adder types. Or, if we wanted to complicate it, we could write the template to give a meaningful output when both are given. Not sure if there's any use for that, though; it was just an observation. — Sebastian 16:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it a matter of which you would find more useful a link to the user page or the user's contribs. I think the contribs would be better Gnevin (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Name change?

There can be other reasons for this template; I just now used it for an unusual reason, but I could easily imagine this being used to protect privacy (in which case it also should be used with parameter "moretext=0") or personal attacks. I already added the parameter "reason" for that. How about if we renamed it to "TextRemoved"? — Sebastian 08:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How about RemovedText as the allows the use of {{RT}} as a shortcut Gnevin (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You must be a C programmer, with your love for terse names! I generally prefer self-explaining names; I think this especially helpful when a template may be read often in diff view, or by untechnical users. "TextRemoved" corresponds to the word order in which the two main words appear and is thus easier to remember for me. In "RemovedText", it's not clear that "Removed" is a verb; it sounds more like an adjective, which changes the meaning slightly. But if you feel strongly about this, I could live with "RemovedText"; the important thing is that it works. — Sebastian 16:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

.Net programmer actually but mainly a editor who likes shortcuts, move to TextRemoved we can still use RT for the short cut or something else. A short cut can be found to suit the name its should not the other way around. Gnevin (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)