Template talk:DailyRef

From MTG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Domain change

Should the domain now be changed to `archive.wizards.com`? These citations now all 404. Yizumi (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It all works fine here. For the first few days of the new site, old links were broken, but they are now being redirected to archive.wizards.com by the website itself. AlmaV (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

*important!* template needs updated - done! Now linkies need updated!

Old linkies no longer redirect. The newer format is http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/* e.g.

Simple substitutions do not work. So in addition to needing to edit the template, we *also* need to manually fix every link -_-. Fortunately, the archive seems to have been crawled pretty well, so fixing each link is just a simple matter of googling them whenever one comes across a still-dead one (or going crazy with http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Category:Articles_with_dead_external_links but a more distributed as-viewed manner might work better to hit the most important ones). I can try to fix the template, but wiki-templates aren't something I've worked on before, so I'd prefer if someone experienced took up the mantle instead. The drudgery of updating linkies once the template is fixed; yeah, that I help out with for sure. Anaphysik (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

    • Okay, so fixing it was actually trivial. I'll go ahead and update the readme to explain the new template format. Anaphysik (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    • The new linky method is simply to list the entire part of the url after "magic.wizards.com/". This might be clunkier than it needs to be, but with Arcana archives seeming to use a different format (en/section/ rather than en/articles/archive/), it's necessary :/. At that point, it's easier just including the en/ as well, both to make selecting simpler and of course in case we need to link to a non-English-language article. Anyway, now the linkies themselves need to be manually updated... Well, at least we're no longer *permanently* consigned to dead links everywhere - just temporarily consigned. Anaphysik (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Hrmmm, of course, the dead link template was left as just a part of this template, which is how the dead-link'd pages got 'catalogued' (obviously not really). That means it won't be obvious at all which pages have been fixed as we (well, hopefully that'll be a 'we') go through them. Not sure how to deal with that. Probably going to leave it in the template for now, just to have a handy list of all the pages that need to be inspected. Alphabetically might be a better option in this case then. Anaphysik (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


your "fix" does not change it, that the links are dead-links. thats why we have {{newRef}} for which is better than this template. --Hanmac (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Alright then; I didn't know about NewRef at the time (though I did just moments ago see it used for 1 of about 25-or-so links on the Planeswalker page - though that just shows how unused it is). The vast majority of pages seem to still use DailyRef, as well as the old (broken) url stubs. I see that you already modified my page edits to use NewRef (instead of simply reverting, phew); thank you for that! Frankly, I'm glad to hear of NewRef, as it sidesteps the deadlink-cataloguing issue. We still need to manually edit (almost) all of the references, but NewRef template it is. (I guess arguably my edit to this still has some use, given that it's just a generalized NewRef, and Arcana seems to require a more generalized url-start? I dunno. It can probably be reverted.) Anaphysik (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    • ("and Arcana seems to require a more generalized url-start?" Sorry, I meant the Ask Wizards archive.) Anaphysik (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure if I like the change. Because now the template essentially does the same as Template:NewRef. I would like to revert it to its old form and the link updated should be done with a switch from DailyRef -> NewRef. The dead link categorization was very helpful because you could see which pages still needed updating. - Yandere Sliver 16:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree, and I am now using NewRef, thanks to Hanmac. I'm just wondering if it's worth leaving this as it is for the potential of utilizing it for corner cases later (like the annoying Ask Wizards categorization), or whether we should revert it for historical sake. Either way, the dead link tag remains with it, and either way, the links with this template are by default broken, so those are non-factors. Personally, I don't care much either way, though do lean towards reverting it and putting a note atop the page that it's an obsolete template. Anaphysik (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

NewRef

Thank you AlmaV for creating this!

LegacymtgsalvationUser620 (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC) (Hunter)

Edit clarifaction

Just wanted to add a quick clarification as to why I added the WIKI parameter to urlencode. The new MtG site does not automatically convert encoded characters (like %2f) to their proper ASCII and as such, any URLs sent to it with encoded characters (namely forward-slashes) would not load the page. By adding the WIKI parameter, urlencode will retain forward slashes and the pages load correctly (this also turns spaces into underscores, but I don't think we'll see any spaces in DailyMTG urls).--Ten19 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! It always weirded me out that the template did this and I had no idea how to fix it. Can this also be done with Template:DailyRef (where NewRef was based on)? AlmaV (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks like DailyRef also uses the urlencode magic word, so it should totally be possible to add that parameter. I'd test it, but the template's protected. --Ten19 (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Should we move this back to DailyRef?

There is no need for the distinction anymore since NewRef took completely over.

I can run a bot over the whole wiki to rename the whole thing, that only takes a few minutes. - Yandere Sliver 03:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Moved Back! NewRef is now DailyRef, nothing else changes. - Yandere Sliver 00:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

News URLs

As has been discussed on Discord, new Magic Story articles use a "news/" prefix instead of "articles/archive/". Here are a few options for making these new references work:

  1. Create a new ref. We could create a new ref that meets the new requirements. This would require a new template for both DailyRef and ArticleArchive, and it would mean any future stories use the new templates, while older ones keep this one.
  2. Make the new system the default. The new URLs are pretty straightforward - they don't have the added archive prefix like old DailyRefs. But updating the DailyRef would obviously break every previous use of the template, which would mean we'd need to edit those to add "articles/archive/" to all of them, preferably programmatically since there are thousands of uses across the wiki.
  3. Update DailyRef to work with both. It's also possible to edit DailyRef so that it can work with old URLs and new ones. Theoretically, this would involve checking if the URL starts with "news/" and removing the archive prefix if it does. I attempted to do so but it seems my if-equals isn't evaluating correctly. I don't have much experience with template coding so someone more experienced could give it a try or I may just fiddle around a bit more. Here's the code I tried, which kept old URLs working but didn't fix new URLs:

|url=http://magic.wizards.com/{{{lang|en}}}{{#ifeq: {{#sub:{{{1|}}}|0|4}} | news/ | / | /articles/archive/}}{{urlencode:{{{1}}}|WIKI}}{{{5|}}}

Wanted to hear thoughts on the best choice for the fix and happy to help with accomplishing that fix. RudleyDudley (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

That is very nice of you, because it is beyond my capabilities. In my opinion, the first option seems to be the best, because the mothership is rather unpredictable at the moment. --Hunterofsalvation (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
The first option is by far the easiest to implement, it pretty much just means I'd make a new DailyRef and new ArticleArchive that don't add the "articles/archive" to the front of the URL, but it would mean that anytime people are adding links in the future they would have to use DailyRef for all story links pre-BRO and ArticleRef or WizardsRef or whatever the new one is called for all links after BRO (I guess technically they could use the new ref for all links, they'd just have to remember to include the "articles/archive/" in the URL). Is that acceptable? RudleyDudley (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Allow me to introduce a bigger question: what are we gaining from all of our referencing templates? And I realize I say this as someone who spun up a new one just the other day. What do we gain by asking editors to chop up URLs rather than just copying them from the address bar? What standardization do these templates offer that WebRef doesn't already give us? At a glance, the only such template that's actually adding value or saving labor is EzTumblr, which can read the URL to fill in the author and title fields using a tiny database. --Corveroth (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mtg.wiki/index.php?title=Template_talk:DailyRef&oldid=235983"