Template talk:Old move

Collapse Working
Is the collapse parameter not working for anyone else? Using the example from documentation, I would expect this to produce a collapsed template:


 * Output

It is definitely not collapsing for, at least, me.--137.54.15.236 (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested Edit
I have two requested edits.
 * 1) The HTML code for the "Older discussion" portion of the template is broken. It starts a table row and table heading without end tags . I'd like an editor to change (before, after):
 * 2) * to
 * 3) Per above, I have determined that collapsed tables require a table heading (, see an example of the code working on Template:Old moves/sandbox). I'd like an editor to change the line:
 * 4) * --> Had to mess with some intermediary edits. Your text-align: center doesn't work right, but I'm not too worried about that. Izno (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * yeah the one intermediate edit was actually mine (I'm the same user who forgot he had logged into his old account), so all you did just now was take a Template that worked with wiki syntax (and which aligned properly) and converted it to HTML syntax. Would you mind changing it back?--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would mind. It is a clearly-inferior implementation. I'm happy to fix the alignment if you think that's necessary. --Izno (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I get that saying "clearly" or "categorically" before the word "inferior" (as you've done on two pages now!) sounds more legitimate, but I'm dubious of that. I'd like to invoke WP:3O if it's all the same to you. Though in advance: I do appreciate that you made the syntax fixes I requested above - I was quite surprised that things like open HTML tags were on a template this popoular--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am always happy to have someone else review my work. As for the alignment issue I noted, I must have reviewed the wrong line--the user who requested the edit deliberately used align left. --Izno (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am always happy to have someone else review my work. As for the alignment issue I noted, I must have reviewed the wrong line--the user who requested the edit deliberately used align left. --Izno (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Third option
Quick note to this third option: The IP here (me) ... the other IP address AND User:K12worker are all me. I have not attempted to act as different people in order to pretend like I have additional support ... I simply started today at my library (137 IP address), went to my home computer (where I was logged into an account I do not use anymore), realized I was logged in ... logged out and that's where I am now.

I initially made a requested edit on this template because the HTML markup was broken - featuring open tags that were not closed - and because the collapse capability of the template was not working. (I also found a mistake in the documentation, but I fixed that on my own.) I can edit templates (I'm an old user) but prefer not to unless I get the feeling no one else is coming (see my request on Template:Infobox convention center, which ultimately ended in me making the edit). After getting home, I did decide to tackle this template myself, but in making the changes I had planned on, I realized how strange the code was (more on that in a second) ... and I realized that I might as well replace the code with wiki syntax done here. User Izno reversed that edit as "not an improvement" (which I find odd given that he reversed it to a template with broken HTML and a broken collapse bug) and then saw my old request and made the changes I requested. I appreciate that he made those changes, but I find the reversal to be ill-advised.

Admittedly, this template involves some tricks to get wiki syntax to work, especially &#123;&#123;!&#125;&#125;, but I believe that is superior to what we have now: a strange bit of code that either produces a div or a table depending on the collapse variable (when there's no reason why it cannot be the same for both, as it was with the wiki syntax). My ultimate point is this: My original edit erased markup errors and was certainly functionally superior than the iteration before it. Izno then made an edit that produced a template that worked equally well (although also featured strange discontinuities, to no fault of his). There is no Wikipedia policy that says HTML should be used in templates, and so there is no real justification of that edit.-216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

TfD of old move and old moves
FYI, and  has been nominated at Templates for Discussion. -- 65.92.246.246 (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 28. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Old move which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)