Template talk:Forum link

Use a format consistent with w:Help:Citation Style 1?
Making this template a call to Template:cite web would provide some consistency of format with other cited sources, particularly around dates (albeit with some CS1 date cleanup required at call sites). Worth pursuing, or not?

Prototype implementation:

-- TedSwippet 10:03, 9 July 2021‎


 * I tested the proposed changes in the Sandbox, but it did not look right to me. Usage is mixed. Forum topics are listed in the External links section with occasional use directly in the content or as a citation. Checking Wikipedia's External link section guidance, use of Cite web is prohibited. I'm wondering if we should be using Cite web for citations and Forum post everywhere else. --LadyGeek 21:06, 11 July 2021 (EDT)


 * Okay, thanks. (Wikipedia's non-use of Cite web in the External links section seems ... odd, particularly given that it is okay in Further reading. The template encourages dating access to the linked material, which helps readers gauge both a resource's usefulness and likelihood of it having suffered link-rot. Shrug.) --TedSwippet 04:17, 12 July 2021 (EDT)

Ordering of elements to put URL first like Cite web
Wikipedia's imported Cite web orders the elements URL, publisher whereas this template uses the reverse order. Should this template change to output the URL first? See the External links section of Art for a comparison. --Peculiar Investor 15:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, a number of articles use this template as convenience sentence 'run on'. For example, Placing cash needs in a tax-advantaged account, currently contains  "... commented in this on the transfer ..." . If the template output is changed to match Cite web, this and multiple similar call sites would need manual attention. --TedSwippet 16:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would not reverse the order. In addition to the convenience of using the template in a sentence, identifying the Bogleheads forum first highlights the close connection between the wiki and the forum. Readers can easily find discussion topics. Otherwise, the link may be missed among the other citations. --LadyGeek 20:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How about double-quotes around the title -- and perhaps also removing plain link -- for at least marginally better consistency with Cite web format? --TedSwippet 21:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and added double-quotes. Also some error checking (missing parameters). Stopped short of removing plain link. Personally I think the quotes improve the look of text generated by this template, but feel free to revert if no agreement. --TedSwippet 14:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Dispense with "®", or even "Bogleheads®"?
According to help text, the "®" need only be present on an article's first use of "Bogleheads". Referring to a forum post could be the first mention, but unlikely. Using "®" on every mention seems over the top. Can we dispense with it in this template? Better might be to dispense with all of "Bogleheads®", leaving just "Forum post"; although capitalisation might conflict with some in-sentence uses. (I realise this was debated some years ago, but I think the topic could usefully be revisited.) --TedSwippet 13:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "&reg;" seems excessive, but the first page I checked Placing cash needs in a tax-advantaged account does not mention "Bogleheads" until the template was used as a citation in the Notes section.


 * Digging into this further, I found a source which provides guidelines on trademark usage Proper Use of Trademarks and Trademark Symbols: IP Law Bulletin ("Frequency" section). We have "&reg;" in the wiki's page footer as About Bogleheads® which covers us.


 * Note that "Bogleheads" is mentioned at the top of every page just under the title. It's the wiki site name as "From Bogleheads". Including "&reg;" as a site name is certainly excessive. Since the page footer has the symbol, there's no need to revise the site name.


 * I do not agree with removing "Bogleheads" as just "Forum post". Readers are likely to arrive at the page via a google search and it's important to ensure they understand which forum we are referring to.


 * I have modified the template to remove the "®".
 * --LadyGeek 14:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to rename this template to properly reflect most common usage
Most of the usage of this template is to link to forum topics, not posts. Therefore I propose to rename (move keeping a redirect) this template to. The only impact is changes to the documentation subpage and changing the shortcut. --Peculiar Investor 12:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It's not a matter of statistics, but capability. Changing the name to "topic" will be confusing, as editors will be wondering if there is also template for changing a post. Most editors understand "post", whereas a "topic" is more ambiguous and does not imply this is for the forum. "Post" is clear. Please retain the name. --LadyGeek 12:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That is the beauty of the wiki redirect system which is commonly used for template shortcuts. Templates can have many different names that all ultimately land on the proper template. There are lots of examples here and on Wikipedia. Just because I make a mistake naming the template in the beginning is not a good reason for not fixing it to reflect the most common usage. The template documentation makes it clear there are two parameters that can be used, one if they want to link a specific post and the common one where they are linking to a topic. --Peculiar Investor 13:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I've been around this wiki too long, but I don't see a strong reason for change from "post" to "topic" either. If we were to rename this template for clarity reasons though, it would be better to use a name that encompasses both use cases, rather than just one of them., echoing Plain link, Section link and so on, seems like a decent choice. (Or maybe to echo Cite web and friends -- although strictly, a forum post or topic cannot usually be considered a citation). --TedSwippet 14:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A generic name would also increase ambiguity thereby making the template difficult to find. I think "post" is clear. Editors typing in the search box will see the template as soon as they start typing "Template:Forum", which is their only choice. The documentation states that the template is purposed for both posts and topics. (I just clarifed the documentation intro.) --LadyGeek 14:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support changing it to as a better new name choice. I am strongly of the opinion that a mistake was made when the template was first created and now is as good a time as ever to fix that. Status quo is not the solution just because that is always the way it has been done. Houston we have a problem, so let's fix it. --Peculiar Investor 15:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I now agree with changing to. --LadyGeek 15:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ The template has been renamed. --LadyGeek 16:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

TemplateData question
I have added TemplateData to this template. I struggled with the definitions for the  and   parameters and how to define if they were required or not. Since TedSwippet has made the most recent changes to the template, I would ask that they review and change as necessary the TemplateData. --Peculiar Investor 16:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am also familiar with this template and have updated the . The page preview checks for JSON format compliance. Note that the string quote characters are escaped. --LadyGeek 16:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Additional. Looking at the technical details of TemplateData, it provides required, suggested, or optional only for individual parameters, and with no way to express or enforce combinations such as "requires A or B but not both A and B". I have added a sentence to the document describing what occurs if you supply both  and   parameters (  is ignored). This is probably the best we can achieve at present with the tools available. --TedSwippet 16:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)