Wikiversity:Threaded discussions with NavFrames with subst/20070520052944

Testing simplified text

20070521133602

• Comment:

--Hillgentleman|Talk 13:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[1]

Which Wikiversity namespaces have "subpage function"?

Which namespaces work? 20070521063728

• Comment: "go to a page in a namespace with subpage function" <-- Which Wikiversity namespaces have "subpage function"? --JWSchmidt 13:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

--JWSchmidt 13:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[2]

Those where, on a subpage, you can see a link to the BASEPAGE, and where /subpage points correctly.

20070521135355

• Comment: E.g. the project namespace, user talk,... We can check.

--Hillgentleman|Talk 13:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[3]

School: yes ; Topic: no ; Template: no ; Category: no ; Main: yes

20070521140309

• Comment: School: yes ; Topic: no ; Template: no ; Category: no ; Main: yes.

It may be useful to file a bug to enable the subpage functionality for Topic: and Template.

• • I agree. --JWSchmidt 14:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

--Hillgentleman|Talk 14:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[4]

NOEDITSECTION added. No more comments-out-of-order.

20070521182637

• Comment:

--Hillgentleman|Talk 18:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[5]

Wikiversity:Threaded discussions with NavFrames with subst/20070521182637 What links here

I have added a Special:whatlinkshere in the preload for rootwards-naviagation

20070521145223

• Comment: As you can see below.

--Hillgentleman|Talk 14:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[6]

It wasn't quite right. The link should work better now.

20070521183225

• Comment:

--Hillgentleman|Talk 18:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[7]

Wikiversity:Threaded discussions with NavFrames with subst/20070521183225 What links here

What links here

Grafting /20070519101448

20070521193448

• Comment: Grafting an old thread

--Hillgentleman|Talk 19:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[8]

A one liner may go here.

NavHead

This revision=20070519172843

• Argument: Here we can elaborate....

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

• reply[9]

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[10]

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[11]

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[12]

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[13]

Problem fixed by reintroducing a thread

NavHead

This revision=20070519183132

• Comment: See above.

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

• reply[14]

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[15]

What links here

Complicated

20070521200237

• Comment: Very complicated. Test 2 (I lost test 1) -- CQ 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

--CQ 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[16]

Which parts do you find complicated? We can probably hide them.

20070521200704

• Comment: This is experimental. We can hide the scary wikitext with { { { SUBST: } } }

  )

--Hillgentleman|Talk 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[17]

What links here

Your previous comment is here /20070519174254.

20070521201312

• Comment: It lies in a deep thread.

That is one drawback of auto-collapsing. Anybody good with .js may try to see if it is possible to make an "expand all" button. For the moment, let us stay on topic. --Hillgentleman|Talk 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[18]

What links here

To play this game, simply reply to the exact comment with the reply button under it.

20070521202742

• Comment: Then the threads will sort themselves out.

Threaded discussions tell us: Clearly, human communication is complex. --Hillgentleman|Talk 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[19]

20070521211912

• Comment: Is this a precurser to liquidThreads ??? -- CQ 21:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• reply[20]

Re: Is this a precurser to liquid threads? No.

20070521213744

• Comment: I don't know what "liquid" means. This is a simple (see the text at /preload) and flexible model of threaded discussion. It is flexible because it is basically a set of pages, indexed by REVISIONTIMESTAMP, transcluded in a tree-like manner. The techniques used here are:

1. transclusion/substitution meta:substitution#optional substitution
2. preload
3. NavFrame
4. The m:magic word REVISIONTIMESTAMP

--Hillgentleman|Talk 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• reply[21]

What links here

What links here

What links here

What links here