Template talk:Forum link

Registered trademark symbol needed?
Should the registered trademark symbol be included? i.e. Bogleheads forum or Bogleheads® forum? --Peculiar Investor 19:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * --Peculiar Investor 19:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Parameter names
To be consistent with phpBB, and therefore easier to use, I'm thinking it would make sense to replace the parameters topic_id with t and post_id with p? The syntax would become ? --Peculiar Investor 03:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The more I ponder it, the stronger I feel this change is the correct approach, but I'll wait for any other views before making a change. --Peculiar Investor 19:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The suggested change would not be helpful to editors. Nothing is changed in the code. "t=" and "p=" are implementations which require understanding of the URL parameters, while "topic_id" and "post_id" are clear. --LadyGeek 01:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't disagree, just thought having the same parameters as phpBB would make it easier to cut and paste into the template. Plus it takes less typing, so less error prone. --Peculiar Investor 01:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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)