(This topic is archived. Please do not edit this page!)
- Referring to {{Faction disambiguation}}. Left out the space in the title.--Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Topic title says most of it. Without Javascript enabled, there is no indication that "the other" page exists.
Expected behavior: default to {{for|<other faction>|<somelink>}}. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a javascript-related issue; see
[80] Prophecies Of Doom -- the notice you want does appear without Javascript on. What it relies on, however, is {{forq|...}} tags on the faction-specific pages, so if there's no "see other faction" disambiguation on those pages, you obviously won't see it on the unified page. - This is intentional; however, we might want to add the other faction link to questbox parameters at some point in the future. — foxlit (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I am uncertain what you mean by "this is intentional". The FactionDisambiguation template as-is relies on precise naming of the two target quests. Why is this forq tag even necessary (for 'ordinary' cases)? Why not bake it into the template itself? If that's your "intentional", what is the reasoning? I am perplexed.
I view the failure, regardless of cause, as ... a fault. A couple things occur to me... It should be possible to determine when a FactionDisambiguation page directs to such pages currently lacking the forq tag.
- Such pages (the disambig page or the target page) could be put into a hidden category for correction.
- Lacking such tags could cause the page to render with a stub-like notice, flagging the lack to the creator.
... if they're being created mechanically, the tags should be added mechanically.
--Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Going to the Prophecies of Doom quest page you linked, I find that the template used is not FactionDisambiguation, but FactionSwitch. Different template. This renders much of the above moot, declaring that FactionDisambiguation is a template that should be sunsetted in favor of FactionSwitch. Unless you know of some reason to keep the inferior template around? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'll get it right one of these days. Not {{FactionSwitch}} (from 2007) but {{Faction switch}} (from 2010). *sigh*. And nearly as sadly categorized as the older one... --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- {{Faction disambiguation}} is a thin wrapper around {{Faction switch}}; so there's really no difference between the two in functionality. The opposite-faction link is not generated by the template because, at the time of its creation, quests used {{forq}} disambiguation, so we could get use for free without having to alter articles. In retrospect, it's nice to have a {{forq}} tag in faction-specific versions, as it allows you to easily look up the opposite-faction version.
- It seems to me that short of a {{questbox}} change, the current solution is fine, and it's simply the pages missing the {{forq}} disambiguation that should be fixed. — foxlit (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess I find myself in the position of the dockyard worker who reports the safety violation in the equipment. By the time the OSHA inspector gets there, the issue has been fixed. At least I don't get fired for reporting it. Still... There should be an automated way to detect the lack of forq. It looks, though, like some of the targetted pages haven't been created yet.
I assume there is some plan for "default to alliance quests / horde quests" to be a preference option? (Which, tbh, sounds much more involved that the typical surfer is going to want to do. Is there a way to judge "the right default" via previous traffic for that IP?)
~1k references to Faction disambiguation, ~1.5k for Faction switch, which may include those used by f.d. Huh. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)