 The Paragon Wiki Archive documents the state of City of Heroes/Villains as it existed on December 1, 2012.
|
Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Slashcommand"
From Paragon Wiki Archive
m |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
: I just added a prefix parameter, with an example. Does that work? Do you want the ++ to be part of the link or no? I made it part of the link, but if you'd prefer it to not be, I can easily change that for you. -- [[User:Sekoia|Sekoia]] 02:22, 16 August 2007 (EDT) | : I just added a prefix parameter, with an example. Does that work? Do you want the ++ to be part of the link or no? I made it part of the link, but if you'd prefer it to not be, I can easily change that for you. -- [[User:Sekoia|Sekoia]] 02:22, 16 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::I think we'll be better off in the long run if the '++' isn't part of the link. Otherwise between "up", "+up", and "++up", we'd have three articles or at least one article and two redirects. If the '+' or '++' isn't part of the link, we have one article with no redirects. Then, if it's a command that can be used with anything like a '+' or '++', we just note the useage in the root command's article. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Thanks for the help. --[[User:Eabrace|Eabrace]] 03:45, 16 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::: Heh, wow, I was very unclear on what I actually meant. Do you want "<nowiki>++[[up (Slash Command)|up]]</nowiki>" or "<nowiki>[[up (Slash Command)|++up]]</nowiki>"? I have the second version right now. The ++ is part of the displayed text that you can click on, but is not actually in the linked article name. Adding the + to the article name would be a Very Bad Thing, because +'s don't work in article names under mod_rewrite, and Tony had said that he was planning to activate that at some point. -- [[User:Sekoia|Sekoia]] 09:00, 16 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::::Ah-ha! I get it now. What you've got right now works pretty well. I say keep it. :) --[[User:Eabrace|Eabrace]] 17:01, 16 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 21:01, 16 August 2007
What's the best way to reference a command like this one:
- /++up
If I feed that in with {{slashcommand|++up}} I get a link to an article named "++up (Slash Command)" when I should really be linking to an article named "Up (Slash Command)."
There are three solutions that come to my mind:
- I could go ahead and create a redirect for every "+" or "++" command I end up running across, but we're going to end up with a lot of redirects.
- I could use the bindcommand template and manually insert the '/+' or '/++' ahead of the command.
- (Assuming it's actually feasible) maybe we could put something in this template to allow for something preceding the command?
OK, back to my cage. --Eabrace 18:10, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
- I just added a prefix parameter, with an example. Does that work? Do you want the ++ to be part of the link or no? I made it part of the link, but if you'd prefer it to not be, I can easily change that for you. -- Sekoia 02:22, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
- I think we'll be better off in the long run if the '++' isn't part of the link. Otherwise between "up", "+up", and "++up", we'd have three articles or at least one article and two redirects. If the '+' or '++' isn't part of the link, we have one article with no redirects. Then, if it's a command that can be used with anything like a '+' or '++', we just note the useage in the root command's article.
- Thanks for the help. --Eabrace 03:45, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
- Heh, wow, I was very unclear on what I actually meant. Do you want "++[[up (Slash Command)|up]]" or "[[up (Slash Command)|++up]]"? I have the second version right now. The ++ is part of the displayed text that you can click on, but is not actually in the linked article name. Adding the + to the article name would be a Very Bad Thing, because +'s don't work in article names under mod_rewrite, and Tony had said that he was planning to activate that at some point. -- Sekoia 09:00, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
- Ah-ha! I get it now. What you've got right now works pretty well. I say keep it. :) --Eabrace 17:01, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
