Template talk:Slashcommand

From Paragon Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What's the best way to reference a command like this one:

  • /++up

If I feed that in with {{slashcommand|++up}} I get a link to an article named "++up (Slash Command)" when I should really be linking to an article named "Up (Slash Command)."

There are three solutions that come to my mind:

  1. I could go ahead and create a redirect for every "+" or "++" command I end up running across, but we're going to end up with a lot of redirects.
  2. I could use the bindcommand template and manually insert the '/+' or '/++' ahead of the command.
  3. (Assuming it's actually feasible) maybe we could put something in this template to allow for something preceding the command?

OK, back to my cage. --Eabrace 18:10, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

I just added a prefix parameter, with an example. Does that work? Do you want the ++ to be part of the link or no? I made it part of the link, but if you'd prefer it to not be, I can easily change that for you. -- Sekoia 02:22, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
I think we'll be better off in the long run if the '++' isn't part of the link. Otherwise between "up", "+up", and "++up", we'd have three articles or at least one article and two redirects. If the '+' or '++' isn't part of the link, we have one article with no redirects. Then, if it's a command that can be used with anything like a '+' or '++', we just note the useage in the root command's article.
Thanks for the help. --Eabrace 03:45, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
Heh, wow, I was very unclear on what I actually meant. Do you want "++[[up (Slash Command)|up]]" or "[[up (Slash Command)|++up]]"? I have the second version right now. The ++ is part of the displayed text that you can click on, but is not actually in the linked article name. Adding the + to the article name would be a Very Bad Thing, because +'s don't work in article names under mod_rewrite, and Tony had said that he was planning to activate that at some point. -- Sekoia 09:00, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
Ah-ha! I get it now. What you've got right now works pretty well. I say keep it.  :) --Eabrace 17:01, 16 August 2007 (EDT)