Wikiversity:Threaded discussions with NavFrames with subst/20070519162600

Questions? Comments?

NavHead

This revision=20070519163246

• Argument:

--Hillgentleman|Talk 16:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[1]

Testing the "external link"

Testing thread

This revision=20070519101448

• Argument:I'm guessing that my comment goes here.

--JWSchmidt 17:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-introducing the thread

This revision=20070519181349

• Argument: adding a thread to a deadend.

--Hillgentleman|Talk 18:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply to ":I'm guessing that my comment goes here" [2]

A one-liner may go here.

NavHead

This revision=20070519182021

• Argument: The script is becoming too small.

Here we can elaborate! --Hillgentleman|Talk 18:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[3]

Perhaps I should change "argument" to "comment".

NavHead

This revision=20070519182319

• Argument: But I still like argument!

--Hillgentleman|Talk 18:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[4]

Done Argument -->comment. Wikiversity:Threaded discussions with NavFrames with subst/preload

NavHead

This revision=20070519182832

• Comment:

--Hillgentleman|Talk 18:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[5]

Testing sections

Can there be sections within threads? --JWSchmidt 17:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[6]

A one liner may go here.

NavHead

This revision=20070519172843

• Argument: Here we can elaborate....

--Hillgentleman|Talk 17:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[7]

Here is the point: the REVISIONTIMESTAMP is precisely for that purpose.

NavHead

This revision=20070519173345

• Argument: BASEPAGENAME/1/1/1/1/1... can only produce a linear structure.

Originally I tried REVISIONID, which didn't work: if we substitute a revisionid, we get blank. --Hillgentleman|Talk 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[8]

And try not to create your own section.

NavHead

This revision=20070519173646

• Argument: Use the "reply link" to create a new section, or else you would create a dead end.

--Hillgentleman|Talk 17:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[9]

I mean,

NavHead

This revision=20070519174254

• Argument:

My "A one-liner may go here" is a reply to ":I'm guessing that my comment goes here." and "Here is the point: the REVISIONTIMESTAMP is precisely for that purpose." replies "Can there be sections within treads". But that latter section was created articficailly (without pressing the "reply button") and so it hijacked the reply link to the previous comment. Or we can say, two different comments (and two different replies) were merged. That makes the questions and answers crossed. So it is a little confusing.

In short, Don't create your own section. Use the "reply" link. Once you have created a section, you are free to edit your previous comments, correct mistakes, etc.

--Hillgentleman|Talk 17:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[10]

IF you find this text too small

NavHead

This revision=20070519174550

• Argument:

go to a subthread by pressing the edit button.

--Hillgentleman|Talk 17:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[11]

Problem fixed by reintroducing a thread

NavHead

This revision=20070519183132

• Comment: See above.

--Hillgentleman|Talk 18:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[12]

Complicated

20070521195901

• Comment:So far, this is too complicated for me to understand. I'm adding this comment as an experiment. -- CQ 19:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

--CQ 19:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[13]

What links here

Using the edit "button" for the new section that I started with the "external link" reply "button". --JWSchmidt 17:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It is better to use the "edit" button only for correcting mistakes.

NavHead

This revision=20070519173026

• Argument: To state a new point, use the "Reply" link, or else your comment would be a dead end.

--Hillgentleman|Talk 17:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[14]