mic_none

Module talk:Copied Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module_talk:Copied

No redirect from

[edit]

Add an option for the `from` argument to be a {{no redirect}} link.

Useful in cases where the 'from' article is now a redirect, since it is the history of that page that is of interest - not the article it redirects to. Tule-hog (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sohom (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bug with numbered parameters

[edit]

Despite: 

	local from_oldid = args["from_oldid"] or args["from_oldid1"] or ""
	local from = args["from"] or args["from1"] or ""

in the module, neither |from= nor |from_oldid1= are working, and they throw errors:

Script warning: from is not a row-based parameter. Use from instead of from1.
Script warning: from_oldid is not a row-based parameter. Use from_oldid instead of from_oldid1.

This is against the intent of the code, and makes it confusingly inconsistent. Same problem is also affecting {{Split article}} and maybe some other templates in this class.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: |from2= is also failing in this template (probably along with other numbered params), so it's even less consistent with the other templates, and is mandatorily used as a complete template multiple times if multiple copying events must be recorded. This is "suboptimal".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{Check talk}

[edit]

Add {{check talk |nocat={{{nocat|}}}}} to the beginning of the template, to make sure it is placed correctly (nocat allows for testing). Tule-hog (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Izno (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backend rewrite

[edit]
This request is an extension of another at Template talk:Merged-from#Backend rewrite. See there for more detail.

I have made some modifications to the module so as to invoke it from {{merged-from}} (for reasons detailed at request link in the hatnote).

The only change that should affect normal {{Copied}} usage is the to parameters will now default to the page the template is invoked on (I previously requested this at #Merged-from nesting). I have also added talk parameters which link to the froms' talk pages, it defaults off (so no change unless explicitly desired).

Other than those modifications, the rest are basically aesthetic to match the language of the current {{merged-from}} (they only apply when invoked from the rewritten merged-from - I use a meta-parameter mergedFrom which shouldn't be used manually). (I also distinguished Category:Wikipedia pages using merged-from template without oldid, which might be unnecessary.) Tule-hog (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tule-hog: at the risk of scope creep: your thoughts on backend rewrites of other WP:CWW-adjacent templates, like {{split}} or {{merge-to}}? (Non-template editor comment three weeks later) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those templates are for proposals, whereas {{merged-from}} is for completed merges (note merged-from is the target of {{merged}}, so usable on source pages as well as destinations; however, use on a source page requires explicitly setting to & from, since 'to' defaults to the transcluding page).
Looks like they both already support multiple articles per banner, so I have no improvements for those in mind. Tule-hog (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, @Tule-hog, I meant {{split article}} and {{merged-to}} (with a "d". I am sparing {{afd-merged-from}} for now because I'm not sure how much Module:Copied would have to change for that one). Thanks! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those do seem like they could potentially benefit from unifying with Module:Copied, but I'll hold off to see if this initial request goes through. Tule-hog (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see quite a few differences on Template:Merged-from/testcases. Can you confirm all these changes are intentional? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, all intentional (see corresponding request for justification). Importantly though, it should be completely backwards compatible - the exact same information should be displayed when invoked with the original template arguments (with minor aesthetic differences, which could be eliminated if desired); tested on transclusions and verified existing parameters. Tule-hog (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry this has taken so long to be looked at, but I intend to implement this tomorrow (assuming no one else beats me to it!) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
/me nudges @MSGJ. Izno (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Apologies again to Tule-hog that this has taken two months to complete. Please let me know if you need further help — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]