Template talk:Edi
Simplification
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change from
<small class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Template:{{{1}}}|action=edit}} {{{2|+/-}}}]</small>
to
<small>[[Special:EditPage/Template:{{{1}}}|{{{2|+/-}}}]]</small>
This removes the unneeded use of a parser function in favor of the built in Special:EditPage. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: case 2 fails, and I am here in passing, so will leave that resolution until later. I wonder whether case 2 is even required, and a check of usage probably is worthwhile. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that case 2 is useful, since it was just a number with no relation to the target --DannyS712 (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Usefulness isn't my concern, the template's use and function as advertised is so. Without the evidence that I am not breaking usage, I am leaving the template as is until that evidence is clearer. We shouldn't break functionality for no benefit. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @DannyS712, Billinghurst: I wonder why 2 is failing too. I made some tests in Template:Edi/testcases with the current and proposed syntax and it seems to work fine. In any case I agree with a usage review, since this is currently the most used template on Meta with more than 8 million transclusions for a function that is now built-in MW. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, apologies, I misunderstood. Indeed leaving the second part empty makes it display bad. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Since this template is no longer used on 8 millions of pages I went ahead and reviewed where this is being used right now, and I've replaced the weird empty param ones so I'll go ahead and implement Danny's proposed update shortly. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Usefulness isn't my concern, the template's use and function as advertised is so. Without the evidence that I am not breaking usage, I am leaving the template as is until that evidence is clearer. We shouldn't break functionality for no benefit. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that case 2 is useful, since it was just a number with no relation to the target --DannyS712 (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Proposed merge with Template:Edit 2023-03-26
editI propose that this template be merged to Template:Edit. Their functionality is the same: provide an edit link. The difference is that {{edi}} allows you to omit Template: while {{edit}} is universal as long as you use the full page name. Since we now have Special:EditPage too, I am not sure we want to keep two quasi-identical templates for the same purpose. Note: if we end merging the two, we need to replace usages of {{edi}} with {{edit|Template:[etc]}} before redirecting. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)