Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Invitation

Proposed move of invitation templates[edit]

– I'm trying to make the Teahouse templates easy to parse with software (like WP:Snuggle). Warning and welcome templates commonly do this by including a comment in the substituted code. For example, Huggle's warning includes "". I've been adding these comments to the invitation templates, but it's occurred to me that this style of template naming is most appropriate when the templates are actually in the Template namespace. Would anyone be opposed to moving them? It turns out that redirects to Templates work as you would expect when using {{subst: ...}}, so no code or references would necessarily break. Are there any other concerns before I make the move? EpochFail^(talk|work) 19:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Glad I saw this. Aaron, could you post this over at the host lounge? No one will see it here, and it's a somewhat complicated issue (for instance, there are other tools that rely on these templates). - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 19:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already

did :P --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 20:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment couldn't you just created redirects? (well, not literally, but intermediate substitution templates) -- use

#redirect:[[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Invitation]]
<onlyinclude>{{sub<noinclude></noinclude>st:Wikipedia:Teahouse/Invitation}}</onlyinclude>

at Template: Teahouse_invitation

That should, I think, solve your redirect substitution problem. And variants for the others. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It works perfectly when I try it http://communitytest.wikia.com/wiki/Substitution_test -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That would work. However, my intention was to move templates to the Template namespace. I don't mean to make a fuss. I was just doing some cleanup and started this discussion to make sure I didn't cause J-Mo et al. any trouble. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 03:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will note that WikiProject invitation templates frequently resided in WP:namespace... -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's interesting. I wasn't aware. Is there a practical reason for the distinction? It looks like welcome templates reside in the Template namespace. Either way, the primary reason I wanted to move them was because it seemed like a useful bit of organization. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 03:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - {{welcomemenu}} or {{welcome}} contains links to various resources on how to operate on Wikipedia. The TeaHouse invitation message says come to the teahouse, so doesn't provide help, but provides an invitation to discuss things. I don't see the resources found in {{welcomeg}} when I click on the teahouse invitation, so it is much less helpful if one is independent minded, but requires you ask for particular resources in the forum itself. It functions like a WikiProject invitation, where people are invited to the wikiproejct to discuss edits in the topic area. Teahouse's topic area is all of Wikipedia. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be more of a technical matter than a potentially controversial question for RM, so I'm removing the RM tag. Feel free to revert me if you think it will help in terms of exposure, but as the request has been languishing in the RM backlog and hasn't been commented on in three weeks, this seems unlikely. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated?[edit]

Someone who knows the use of Teahouse invitation templates better than me may want to have a look at Tariqmudallal's edits here and here. He tagged {{Teahouse invitation}} and {{Teahouse invitation TW}} as deprecated, in a way that made all the transclusions (and for Template:Teahouse invitation there are dozens) say "This template is deprecated" instead of what it was supposed to say. Template:Teahouse invitation TW was in use as recently as September 6. If those templates are to be marked as deprecated, it should be done in a way that doesn't affect old transclusions. For now I have reverted those edits. Huon (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]