The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No need for formal closure, a clear consensus has been reached, change already enacted. PhantomTech forgot to conclude the RfC with an archive template. Esquivalience ^t 22:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should the changes in revision 655008232 be applied? PhantomTech (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state, any link which appears to go to a channel with multiple # goes to the channel with one less. The proposed change causes the template to behave as is explained in the docs and how it did prior to November 4 2014, when the change that the proposed one undoes was introduced. Any template that currently attempts to link to a channel with more than one # misleads the user by showing the name with an extra #. This change does not break any transclusions which show a link to the proper channel, the transclusions it does break are broken in the sense that they will go to the channel they say they do, feel free to test that. Here's a table showing the changes and issue:

Now			→	Post-change
Parameter	Channel linked to	Link text		Parameter	Channel linked to	Link text
channel	#channel	#channel connect		channel	#channel	#channel connect
#channel	#channel	##channel connect		#channel	##channel	##channel connect
##channel	##channel	###channel connect		##channel	###channel	###channel connect

Notice that in the current version, the link's text does not always match the channel the link goes to. PhantomTech (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer the template to behave the way an IRC client itself would. I believe all IRC clients on Freenode automatically insert a # if you type a bare word as the channel name. For example, if i type /join wikipedia-en, it takes me to #wikipedia-en. Typing /join #wikipedia-en would also take me to #wikipedia-en, and typing /join ##penguins would take me to ##penguins. In other words, Freenode just assumes that if there are zero #'s there should be one, and if there is one there should still be one, and if there are more than one it is also treated as that number. So since Im not entirely clear how the template behaved before Nov 2014, Im not sure I support either one of these options. —Soap— 03:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, freenode will automatically take you to #channel if you try to join channel or #channel, but according to this templates docs, that isn't how the template is "supposed" to work and so making that change could break some templates, or more accurately, keep them broken. That said, I have no opposition to this change since that's probably how it should have been set up in the first place. My issue with the current version is a link that looks like it should take you to a channel with more than one # will take you to the channel with one less, (example: link ##channel goes to #channel) something that is easily fixed by my change with no negative effects. PhantomTech (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've updated the sandbox with PhantomTech's proposed code, and I am working on finding the Lua module that Theopolisme (IIRC) started working on to take over for this template to deal with this situation as-well-as add the ability to add the visitor's nick to the link to match their username on enwp as closely as possible. I'll be back once I find that and see what state it was left in by Theo and myself. I've also updated the table to offer live examples. I'll not that I don't specifically object to this change, but due to the very high transclusion rate, I want to make sure that it is done correctly and all uses of the template are properly updated before/as the change is made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This "situation" doesn't require a module to be fixed and attempting to make one to do so unnecessarily complicates and delays the fix, even more than it already has been. If you want to try to add anything to the template other than this, feel free to keep working on it but please don't let it delay something that could have been done a few days ago. If you want to check to see how this change affects current transclusions feel free, but I would be amazed if you were able to find a single transclusion where this change couldn't be considered a fix, even Soap's change would hardly affect any current transclusions. PhantomTech (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, in that case, once you update all of the existing uses of the template to explicitly have the #, then we can make changes to this template. Otherwise, all of the occurrences will break and I won't support that. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not aware of a single transclusion that would be broken by the proposed change. In fact, adding a # to current transclusions would cause the proposed change to break them and would not affect (i.e. be completely pointless) transclusions if Soap's change was made. PhantomTech (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Technical 13: I'd be interested to see an example of a template that it would be breaking, or two examples, or three. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 03:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It changes the behavior of the end result. Going to #channel loads up the IRC client and focuses on the the channel, Going to channel loads up the IRC client and takes you to the status pane. All of the instances where no preceding # is used in the parameter will be broken if this change is made and there will be NO WAY for people to have that behavior using this template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OpposeSupport the modification. I'd rather have the template behave the same way as a standard IRC client. Also, question: is there any reason why the "link label" doesn't reflect the channel which the link takes users to? APerson (talk!) 15:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC) changed to support at 15:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @APerson: The mismatch between link text and link targets is the problem the proposed change fixes. In its current state, it is impossible to link to a channel with two or more hashes, like ##chanel, and have the link display the right number of hashes. The change fixes that issue without breaking any current transclusions, though the parameter would not behave exactly as an IRC client. PhantomTech (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  PhantomTech - oh yeah, you're right. I must have misread the template code. I changed my vote to support. APerson (talk!) 15:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This proposed change still breaks the expected behavior of loading into IRC with the status window in focus when "channel" is used as opposed to "#channel". In order for me to support this change, the talk page of every usage of "channel" will need to have a discussion about where that project wants the user to load. I know that when I use this on talk page discussions, I specifically leave off the # so that people will load to the status window and will know if they need to pick another nick because the one they want is taken or registered and won't be stuck being Guest##### unexpectedly. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the idea that it is expected for the link to a channel to take you to a status window some sort of common knowledge that I'm simply unaware of? I haven't been around here as long as some people, but last time I checked, when a policy is changed it isn't proposed on the talk pages of every affected article, I don't see why making a template work the way it did before November 4th 2014 and how it has always said it works in its docs would be more complicated than a policy change. Maybe I'm missing something but I have the strangest feeling that most people using these links use the connect button, not an IRC client. I also have a weird feeling that the shock(?) experienced by users of IRC clients when they are given a Guest nick, which realistically can only happen about once per user since if they've connected to Freenode before they've probably found a nick they like that isn't taken, isn't too severe. After all, if they're using an IRC client they're probably pretty familiar with how to change their nick and the few second delay it takes them to realize the nick they chose was taken isn't going to inconvenience them much, definitely not as much as anyone trying to link to a channel with more than one hash is currently being inconvenienced. PhantomTech (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the modification. After reading all of the arguments for and against, and asking Technical 13 to provide a straight-up specific example of a template that would be broken I found no compelling reason to retain the template in the way it is. I have a transclusion of this template on my userpage, the way docs said to, and I'm hoping that it will one day actually take visitors to the right channel, while displaying the correct number of hashes. It appears as if PhantomTech's proposal will solve this problem. As PhantomTech said, The blue button takes you through to your iRC client (which means you already know how to use IRC and can change your nick), the green one takes you to the webchat (and hopefully, the channel with the correct number of hashes.) — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 19:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per kikichu. Unless you can produce a place where it would break the template, I see no reason why the change should not be made. TheMesquito^buzz 03:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the modification. It cleans up the template transclution code. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 00:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Here are example transclusions in my sandbox showing what the current version does. I have tested the first two in HexChat and they both go to a single-hash channel, contrary to what the documentation says should happen, so something does need to be done, though I can't say for sure what. Either Soap's or PhantomTech's changes would be good. ekips39 (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.