Thread:Rappy/@comment-9605025-20190921202805

Hello Rappy. I want to start by making it clear that I understand the script is in rather early stages of testing. Nonetheless, when you start testing something that is extremely visible on Community Central, it is going to generate some discussion. If you are interested in what has been said so far, please see this thread.

My purpose in making this thread is to relay some feedback that some of us here at Community Central have in spite of the extremely small sample pool (only 4 posts so far). I am going to skip the feedback that Noreplyze has supposedly already relayed to you.

It isn't clear to use why it is preferable to have the option to not include the wiki's name and a link to the page. This topic came up breifly early on in the other thread (linked above) but has resurfaced in light of this thread. What we appear to have in this thread is a user who opted to not include the wiki's name and page link yet is asking something potentially specific to the page. True, they tried to manually include a link, but they used the internal link syntax. Since this post is on Community Central rather than the wiki they are editing, this link points to a non-existant page here on Community Central rather than the page they have a question about. This leaves us with nearly zero context as to what the question is about. In this particular case, the post was made by a registered user (Jamslammer) and Cheeseskates was able to find the wiki (I suspect) by browsing the wikis listed in Jamslammer's masthead. However, it is not always the case that the post is about a wiki in the poster's masthead. This issue becomes even more problematic when working with anonymous users (as with the first 3 threads on the board). From what I can tell, there isn't a situation in which including the wiki name and page link would be detrimental. On the flip side, having it saves us here at Community Central from making yet another "link please" reply (we already have to make quite a few of them). Even if we continue with this less prefered method, there is still the issue of anons. Again, I know it is a really small sample size right now, but it seems like anons aren't able to refind these threads. Therefore, it seems that replying to an anon serves no purpose. I am aware that your script noticies the anon about bookmarking the page. However, I am not convinced a user would actually read that notice; I know I wouldn't.

One suggestion I have is to process the post content and replace all internal links (not external/interwiki links) with interwiki links. This would ensure that we here at Community Central get links to the actual pages rather than to non-existant Community Central pages. 