Template talk:Commentary/LQT

Can we just put in this template so it doesn't have to be beside the template? --Thunderhead 23:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration vs Talk
This template refers to the article's talk page... but the tab says collaboration. I wonder if it makes sense to change the reference to the article's "collaboration" page? Philippe (WMF) (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me. ✅.  --Pi zero (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Link broken
Comments:No surprises for sport in 2012/2013 Australian federal budget links to Talk:No surprises for sport in 2012 instead of Talk:No surprises for sport in 2012/2013 Australian federal budget. --John Vandenberg (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem clearly comes from the template's use of for the back and collaboration links.  Given that LQT is an insane kludge, however, I wouldn't care to bet on what would happen if one replaced those uses with  .  Hm.  --Pi zero (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Progress. The template already uses  as sort key when putting the comments pages in Category:Wikinews:Commentary pages on news events, which appears to settle how the magic word behaves on those pages.  --Pi zero (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've now actually made the change to the template. Initially it appeared to have had no effect whatsoever.  At this moment it looks as if it might have worked after all.  Maybe in another few minutes or hours it'll break something.  --Pi zero (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: it appeared not to have had no effect because I was looking at an old page that used Commentary instead of Commentary/LQT. --Pi zero (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding WN:CSD
The template currently reads "If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead." In advance of making any complicated changes, I propose adding "before it is published" and "or your comment will be deleted per our criterion for speedy deletion #6 for other pages" so it reads "If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc) before it is published, please use its regular collaboration page instead or your comment will be deleted per our criterion for speedy deletion #6 for other pages." — Jeff G. ツ 20:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it is necessary. Why should we tell the readers about our deletion criteria? We should tell them to use talk page for reporting issues. That is sufficient. If they use comment space, the administrator will (and should) read the page before deleting, and so he/she will correct the problem. acagastya 21:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, keep in mind that the deletion of a page you've created is kind of a downer, even if the intended effect is accomplished. --Pi zero (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC) That said, on consideration, bringing up deletion on all comments page seems unfriendly.  I think we'd be better off holding out for a more complicated change to prevent the opinions tab from appearing before the article is published (but it does need to be foolproof on the inclusive side, because we don't ever want the tab to be missing on a published article).  --Pi zero (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)