Difference between revisions of "Template:comic discussion"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(hmmm)
(don't show in main page)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
<div style="border:1px solid grey; background:#eee; padding:1em;">
 
<div style="border:1px solid grey; background:#eee; padding:1em;">
 
{{#ifexist:{{TALKPAGENAME}}
 
{{#ifexist:{{TALKPAGENAME}}
   |<onlyinclude>{{:{{TALKPAGENAME}}}}</onlyinclude>
+
   |{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Main Page||{{:{{TALKPAGENAME}}}}}}
 
   |''No comments yet.''
 
   |''No comments yet.''
 
}}</div>__NOTOC__
 
}}</div>__NOTOC__

Revision as of 17:19, 6 August 2012

Comment.png add a comment!Discussion

The template eats whitespace, compare Talk:1101: Sketchiness and 1101: Sketchiness. --Kronf (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. In most cases it performs fine. Here's just a few examples:
I don't know what is wrong with that talk page, but it appears to be happening only for that comic.
lcarsos (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

New topic for testing purposes

Just testing what the TOC looks like... Mark Hurd (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI I've mentioned my change to "add a topic!" here for a wider audience. Mark Hurd (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Switched to level-1 header

I was just on 1110 and I noticed that all the talk page sections were showing up as the same level as content sections... leaving a "Discussion" section with nothing actually in it. While level-1 is normally reserved for article titles, it doesn't really bother people usually, and I think it's preferable to the alternative... it's also somewhat fitting, since we are transcluding another page after all. (Another option would be configuring the "new section" button to create a level-3 header on talk pages... if that's possible.) PinkAmpersand (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. This actually had been done before. Please see this discussion and add your thoughts :) Waldir (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"add a comment!" button

I noticed that the link appended onto the "add a comment!" button is {{fullurl:{{TALKPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it as {{fullurl:{{TALKPAGENAME}}|action=edit&section=new}}, as to create a new section by clicking that button? Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 15:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If someone just wants to add a comment without making a new section, the current add a comment button serves them well. Plus, headers and transclusion do not mix well, and we tend to avoid them in discussion pages unless we're not transcluding; see Time and its respective talk page. Davidy²²[talk] 16:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Davidy22. Most replies should not start a new section because users are just replying to an existing one. If some likes to open a new section it's still easy.--Dgbrt (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

TOC

Is there a way to keep the discussion in the TOC, but not show it on the main page?--17jiangz1 (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Given our new comic descriptions are added by a bot, it wouldn't be too hard to add <noinclude>{{comic discussion}}</noinclude> instead of just {{comic discussion}}. Mark Hurd (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Aren't comic descriptions added manually?--17jiangz1 (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)