Log in

Template talk:Conflict

From PathfinderWiki
← $1

Proposed change

I think that we should move discussions of conflicts off of main articles and place them on the associated talk pages. This will allow people to easily find them if needed but won't draw attention to them for those who are not concerned with internal canon discrepancies. We can alter this template to link to the ==Conflicts==section of the Talk page of any article in which it appears. -- yoda8myhead 20:33, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

OK, since we're bringing it back up, I'd like to propose *article_name*/Conflicts instead of the Talk page. My only reason is because I consider the Talk pages to be more informal and ephemeral. --Aeakett 21:08, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with that. The only instance it might be a nuisance would be if we made a sub-article for a region and the conflicts which have occurred there historically, like Cheliax/Conflicts but I don't think that will come up any time soon, since they would most likely just be included in the /History article and then each conflict would have its own page, like the Everwar and the Even-Tongued Conquest. So, long story long, I think that's a nice way of doing it. We will have to be careful when moving articles with /Conflicts subpages, though, since moving will automatically take the /Talk page to the new destination but not other subpages. -- yoda8myhead 19:08, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Main namespace or Talk namespace?

I don't think the /Conflicts pages should exist in the main namespace. I propose we alter the template to link to Talk:Article/Conflicts instead of just Article/Conflicts since it these discussions are from an entirely meta POV.—yoda8myhead 09:14, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable argument. Agreed. —aeakett 23:50, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Problems when used in the middle of a paragraph

For the first time tonight, we used this template in the middle of a paragraph, and it acts totally wonky. See here for an example. I'm not sure what's going on, can anybody else see what I'm missing? —This unsigned post was made by Aeakett. Please sign all posts with ~~~~.

Fixed. There was a carriage return and space between the </includeonly> and <noinclude> HTML tags. I also added <onlyinclude>, which I saw used on another wiki. I'm not sure if eliminating the blank lines or adding the additional parameter is what fixed it, but it's working fine now.—yoda8myhead 05:08, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Great detective work, thanks. —aeakett 09:20, March 23, 2010 (UTC)