Template talk:Wayback
Template-protected edit request on 2 October 2024
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request this be redirected to Template:Webarchive as Template:WayBack is (note caps difference). Currently {{wayback}} just fails and redlinks. Now watch what happens if you search for "template:wayback": Special:Search/template:wayback: the search autoredirect feature kicks in. Talk about "newbie-unfriendly" ("How come it doesn't work in the template but does when I try to search it?") --Slowking Man (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Done. ✗plicit 02:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)- User:Explicit: This should have been discussed before being implemented. This template was intentionally deleted to be a red link long ago because there are so many imposter versions floating around, imported from old diffs, and imported from other wikis that use this template name. Now with this redirect, it creates problems like in Bagrianwala. The search thing Slowking brought up is a very minor concern. The last thing we want is for editors to start using
{{wayback}}with parameters designed for{{webarchive}}it will create a maintenance problem. There is no reason to re-introduce this complication that was solved years ago. -- GreenC 02:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)- Good to know. Alternate suggestion: Can it spit out an error msg when invoked, saying to use the replacement template? Or something else so it doesn't just fail unexplained. Good general programming principle: don't fail silently, but make noise about it so people take notice of the error. (Might also be good to put a doc message on the page itself explaining what the deal is so people years later can avoid repeating the same scenario. "Why is this not redirected like the other title?") Slowking Man (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- It was making noise, generating a big red error message to the effect the template does not exist which is precisely what the situation is, the template does not exist. But now it exists, and we have confusion. -- GreenC 15:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Good to know. Alternate suggestion: Can it spit out an error msg when invoked, saying to use the replacement template? Or something else so it doesn't just fail unexplained. Good general programming principle: don't fail silently, but make noise about it so people take notice of the error. (Might also be good to put a doc message on the page itself explaining what the deal is so people years later can avoid repeating the same scenario. "Why is this not redirected like the other title?") Slowking Man (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
