Template talk:Category link without namespace

Did I miss the part where it tells what the heck this template is? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

editprotected

{{editprotected}} This template is in Category:Function templates, but that is now a redirect to Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates. Please update the category link. --Russ (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Step hen 05:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

editprotect II

{{Editprotect|FrankB 15:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)}} Update to compatibility with the commons version, so the pipetrick below works...[reply]

";American people who are publishers" (...in syntax/use: {{C|Publishers (people)|publishers}}.})

Replace:
[[:Category:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]

with/Install: 

[[:Category:{{{1}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}]]

Thanks // FrankB 15:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Would you mind updating the documentation subpage (which I also created)? Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit causing template to malfunction

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AC&diff=640493806&oldid=640456594

(Take this to the talk page... This is a revert of added functionality that was not discussed; any 'breakage' is a result of the initial change.)

This sounds nonsensical, as (1) it suggests any and every change requires previous discussion; and (2) the template was working before this edit – i.e. it was this edit that caused it to malfunction.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any breakage is caused by the addition of the |icon parameter, shifting the other unnamed parameters by one position. We discussed adding unnamed parameters before, and why this is a bad thing. It breaks backward compatibility, and in an ironic twist of self-referential argument, is the second reason I reverted. The first being that link templates should not use icons, not before reaching consensus anyway. It's fluff and does not add any value to the template. Most readers don't know the icon stands for anyway. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the icon in question requires attribution, which means it must link to it's onw file description page, and therefor unsuitable in this context. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any malfunction caused by the parameter handling, so I don't understand your first statement. I also don't see how it didn't – or, in future, couldn't be amended to – handle backward compatibility. The "ironic twist" is that I have no particular fondness for icons preceding links; my edit was to simplify something already in practice. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]