Template talk:Userlinks

Fullurl v. Wikilink

I have decided to change this back to how it was because differentiating between a wikilink and another type is pretty useful. It is helpful to know (for at least unfamiliar users) that clicking the email link will not open an external program or some other variant. Also, I find it weird to fullurl a user page. It won't be the death of me if people like it the other way (I'm not sure anyone other than RobinHood gives a crap :P). Elliot (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason for the fullurl's, as I recall, was so that non-existent pages wouldn't show up as Wanted Pages, though with a grand total of two "real" uses, both for Krusty, it's not really a big deal at the moment. And I suspect rpeh will also give a crap...maybe a couple of others. ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 09:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

With 400+ wanted pages, I don't see that as an issue. Of course, we can run an #ifexist through it and gray out the links to pages that do not exist like Wikipedia does with their own. Elliot (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I spent days getting the list down to 400 from about 6000, I'd rather not see it start to creep up again. In this case, though, it's not a problem. User page links aren't included in the list, so I don't mind which way this works. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if they did or not and hadn't gotten around to looking it up. (Edit: Duh! Of course they don't, or we'd have Wanted Pages for every red-linked signature—I clearly wasn't thinking that through. Looking at the history, the colour difference was the only reason I used fullurl throughout.) Thanks for the clarification. I preferred the same colours (obviously, or I wouldn't have changed it) but I can see Elliot's point too, so I'm fine with whatever way works for everyone else.

While we're on the topic of changing this, though, do we really need "talk" and "message"? I'll grant "message" is somewhat convenient, but I would think one of them would be sufficient. I'd tend towards "talk" on its own, but an argument could be made for "message" only. ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 22:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can just use an arrow next to talk. I mean, there are many ways we can go about it. Elliot (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

An arrow works. I was thinking of a + sign, since that's what we normally use for the new section tab, but "talk +" makes me think it's an improved talk page somehow, and "talk • + • contribs" looks like we're trying to do ASCII art or something. So an arrow could work, or maybe "talk⁺". I'm not picky. ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 03:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed it. Are there any other links that you think would be helpful? Elliot (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

← Looks good! I can't think of any other links off-hand, but if there are any, I would think the Wikipedia templates you linked to above would be a good place to look. Since we're not really using the template much at the moment, we might want to wait and see what uses we put it to before deciding what else should go into it. Though that may be a paradox, since what we put into it would probably also affect what use we put it to. ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 05:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)