Template talk:Forum link
Parameter names
To be consistent with phpBB, and therefore easier to use, I'm thinking it would make sense to replace the parameters topic_id with t and post_id with p? The syntax would become {{forum post|t= |p= |title= }}? --Peculiar Investor 03:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- The more I ponder it, the stronger I feel this change is the correct approach, but I'll wait for any other views before making a change. --Peculiar Investor 19:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- The suggested change would not be helpful to editors. Nothing is changed in the code. "t=" and "p=" are implementations which require understanding of the URL parameters, while "topic_id" and "post_id" are clear. --LadyGeek 18:52, 7 December 2015 (MST)
- Upon further review, I have incorporated the change. --LadyGeek 18:25, 8 December 2015 (MST)
- The suggested change would not be helpful to editors. Nothing is changed in the code. "t=" and "p=" are implementations which require understanding of the URL parameters, while "topic_id" and "post_id" are clear. --LadyGeek 18:52, 7 December 2015 (MST)
Ordering of elements to put URL first like {{Cite web}}
Wikipedia's imported {{Cite web}} orders the elements URL, publisher whereas this template uses the reverse order. Should this template change to output the URL first? See the External links section of Art for a comparison. --Peculiar Investor 15:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- For better or worse, a number of articles use this template as convenience sentence 'run on'. For example, Placing cash needs in a tax-advantaged account#Notes, currently contains "... commented in this {{Forum post|t=...}} on the transfer ...". If the template output is changed to match {{Cite web}}, this and multiple similar call sites would need manual attention. --TedSwippet 16:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- I would not reverse the order. In addition to the convenience of using the template in a sentence, identifying the Bogleheads forum first highlights the close connection between the wiki and the forum. Readers can easily find discussion topics. Otherwise, the link may be missed among the other citations. --LadyGeek 20:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- How about double-quotes around the title -- and perhaps also removing {{plain link}} -- for at least marginally better consistency with {{Cite web}} format? --TedSwippet 21:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've been bold and added double-quotes. Also some error checking (missing parameters). Stopped short of removing {{plain link}}. Personally I think the quotes improve the look of text generated by this template, but feel free to revert if no agreement. --TedSwippet 14:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- I would not reverse the order. In addition to the convenience of using the template in a sentence, identifying the Bogleheads forum first highlights the close connection between the wiki and the forum. Readers can easily find discussion topics. Otherwise, the link may be missed among the other citations. --LadyGeek 20:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
On the Bogleheads wiki TedSwippet is still tweaking a bit. In a couple of days if there are no further edits I will update our version of the template with these improvements. --Peculiar Investor 19:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Proposal to rename this template to properly reflect most common usage
Most of the usage of this template is to link to forum topics, not posts. Therefore I propose to rename (move keeping a redirect) this template to {{forum topic}}. The only impact is changes to the documentation subpage and changing the shortcut {{fp}}. --Peculiar Investor 12:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's not a matter of statistics, but capability. Changing the name to "topic" will be confusing, as editors will be wondering if there is also template for changing a post. Most editors understand "post", whereas a "topic" is more ambiguous and does not imply this is for the forum. "Post" is clear. Please retain the name. --LadyGeek 12:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- This template also exists on the Bogleheads wiki and therefore I started a parallel discussion there. Consensus there is to rename/move to
{{forum link}}. That aligns very well with the first few words that describe the template. Being bold I'm going for it. --Peculiar Investor 15:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)- The Bogleheads wiki has also renamed / moved the template to
{{Forum link}}. --LadyGeek 16:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- The Bogleheads wiki has also renamed / moved the template to
- This template also exists on the Bogleheads wiki and therefore I started a parallel discussion there. Consensus there is to rename/move to
Done --Peculiar Investor 16:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)