Template talk:A or b

From GodWiki
Revision as of 16:35, 20 December 2018 by Djonni (talk | contribs) (Documentation edits and minor alternation bug: Boldness endorsed!)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Naming of these templates?

So, I went to use the arbitrary-pronoun templates today while editing an article, and without looking it up I just reflexively typed {{hero or heroine}}. Which tells me that that form should at least be available to invoke these templates.

I was going to just create a bunch of redirects from e.g. {{hero or heroine}} to {{hero-or-heroine}}, etc. But then I thought, before I do that, let's discuss whether they should be moved to those names instead. Because if it's done that way, the redirects from the current hyphenated names will be created automatically. But once redirects are created at the non-hyphenated names, then we're stuck. The templates can't be moved to those names without administrative intervention to delete the redirect first.

(This bit me when trying to rename all of the aura articles from [[Aura of Something]] to [[Aura of something]] — I was able to rename about 2/3 of them where the lowercased name didn't already exist. But the other 1/3, where someone had already created an [[Aura of something]] redirect to [[Aura of Something]], the system wouldn't let me rename them.)

So, I don't want to paint myself/us into a similar corner by creating redirects instead of doing moves. And in hindsight, the hyphenated names are a bit clunky to type. So, that's the question: redirect {{hero or heroine}} to {{hero-or-heroine}}? Or move Template:hero-or-heroine to Template:hero or heroine (with implicit redirect created)? -- FeRDNYC (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, the {{First-or-second}} naming scheme was really just my own idiosyncratic solution, badly guided by the fact that the GodWiki had historically eschewed spaces in template names, but reaching for a solution wasn't runningeverythingtogether. That's a bad habit we're breaking around here at the moment, and there's no reason these shouldn't move with the times. Vivalarevolución Viva la revolución! Let's move 'em.
In fact... since we're doing so, I thought after finishing these that it was a shame I didn't name this master template much more generically, as {{1 or 2}}. So in fact I'll take this opportunity to do that, and make this a more widely usable template. -- Djonni (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe {{a or b}}? Just thinking that numbers could be confusing given the use of {{{1}}} etc... -- FeRDNYC (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm. Confusing, or self-documenting? There's no reason the parameters actually need to be named, after all.
That said, a or b is a more plain-english way to describe a set of alternatives than one or two, which can mean choosing the quantity of one thing. Yeah, {{a or b}} works better. -- Djonni (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Make |daily=1 the default?

As a separate question, I wonder if these templates should default to |daily=1, unless it's explicitly switched off with |daily=0? I kind of like the idea that the pronouns will be constantly shifting in the article text, rather than being stuck on either choice for the life of the article. But, I don't like it enough to explicitly type |daily=1 every time I use them. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Mmm, in fact I think I've only used these with |daily=1. So, yeah, why the hell not. Nobody but you and I is using them so far, so I don't see why we shouldn't make them how we think best. And I clearly agree, since I have been using it universally this way.
I'll give it {{yesno-yes}} behaviour, and also make |d= a synonym for |daily=. Probably not today, though I'll see how I go. (Not possessive of it either, feel free if you're so moved.) -- Djonni (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Heh, I was actually going to add |d= at some point, I had the same exact thought while writing this section. 😃 -- FeRDNYC (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Documentation edits and minor alternation bug

@Djonni: You may notice I was Bold (possibly a little too Bold) in editing the documentation for these. Mostly along the lines of our conversation about documentation focus/accessibility. Or... at least, it started out that way. But as so often happens to me, things sort of snowballed. So, apologies up front for being quite so sweepingly-Bold, if I'd known going in my changes would be that extensive I probably would've erred on the side of discussing before editing. Mea culpa. Please definitely be savage in looking over the changes, and call out anything I made worse.

Anyway, my initial goal was to move the tables of wrapper templates up to the start of the article, so that people could refer to that if that's all they wanted to look up about {{a or b}}. (Part of the impetus was that I was planning to promote them in the forum topic — for reasons that'll be obvious when you visit, if they aren't already — and wanted to link to "this set of handy templates" with a link destination that was as non-threatening as possible for even the wikitimid.)

But then I spotted an alternation issue in one of the examples that led me to a really minor bug in a couplethree wrappers (their code was |invert={{{i{{{invert|}}}}}} instead of |invert={{{i|{{{invert|}}}}}}), which got me to thinking that the examples in the documentation should use the actual templates as much as humanly possible, since it's basically free test cases for the code, so I made a bunch of edits to replace the last few example static texts with example template transclusions (which 90% of the examples already were), and then I decided to go on a categorizing binge which is why we now have Category:Randomized templates...

Long story, short I got meddly. Which is better than getting medley, because I really cannot sing. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I saw both the post and the edits, and noticed the new category. The changes were excellent, the rationale was self-evident, the examples are great. 😊 I had this lingering voice in the back of my head telling me I needed to go through and double-check my changes — I have trouble finding uninterrupted time to concentrate recently, and am constantly switching platforms so don't always have good offline editors with regex readily available. I wanted to get those changes we'd discussed above done and documented promptly, as I wanted to offer them as an option to creators, which you already eloquently did. And long story long, those edits were all typed longhand and a just knew I hadn't caught all my errors, heh.

The docs restructure to focus on the most common use is great, and language is clearer now. Thank you!