ModEnc is currently in Maintenance Mode: Changes could occur at any given moment, without advance warning.

Template talk:TTL

From ModEnc
Jump to: navigation, search

What did you do to the template? Now the link includes the equals sign and the value! I'm assuming that was NOT intentional.. Vinifera7 21:40, 23 October 2006 (CEST)

I'm not quite sure how to phrase this, so let me put it this way: My thoughts about your intellect when I read that weren't very flattering.
Before I fall into sarcasm, let me just end this with the suggestion to read both the revision comment as well as the newly added content.
Renegade (SysOp) 22:03, 23 October 2006 (CEST)
You're not really a people person, are you? Anyway, why do you want the whole thing to be the link?
I'm not really a stupidity person. To get all panicky and assuming turning the whole thing into a link "was NOT intentional", when the comment says "If this works, the entire templated expression should form the link", and an example is added that clearly shows the whole thing being a link, then it's pretty fucking obvious that, not only was it intentional, but it was actually the original reason for the edit - the presentation rewrite was just 'cause I was there anyway.
To answer your question, I want the whole thing to be a link 'cause it is one entity. It's not flag.....value. Not flag-|-value. Not flag value. It's Flag=value, "this flag has this value". Color is one of the most obvious ways to show a difference, and it works double in a black-on-white text. The original template continuously broadcasted the subconscious message "here is the flag. here ends the flag. here starts the value." instead of just "flag X has this value". If anything, it made the flags harder to read, due to the unnecessary disconnection mid-expression.
That, and it simply looked like crap.
Oh, and just to make this clear: You were the one who just guessed what my intention was, assumed I did not meet them, and immediately started a page bitching about wiki-wide "mistakes" I made.
Had you just stopped for one second and read what I said about the damn revision, you'd have known you're wrong and, at least from an intentional point of view, everything was fine.
You were the one who fucked up here. So don't you start bitching at me for not being happy about having to clarify this redundant crap.
Renegade (SysOp) 13:14, 24 October 2006 (CEST)
P.S.: I'm not saying DCoder's original template was bad in any way...had it been, I'd have "fixed" it a long time ago. I'm just saying this one is better.
And since DCoder's reaction when I showed him the change was "nice", I'm rather sure he's not actually opposed to it, either.