Difference between revisions of "Property talk:WpNsRelatedPage"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(idea) |
m (reply) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I wonder whether this property can be replaced by a new, non namespace-specific one, e.g. "relates to" (or possibly the existing {{Prop|is about}})? [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 19:20, 19 December 2013 (GMT) | I wonder whether this property can be replaced by a new, non namespace-specific one, e.g. "relates to" (or possibly the existing {{Prop|is about}})? [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 19:20, 19 December 2013 (GMT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I've thought about it for a while and cannot decide. I'm bothered about missing something because, as currently used it is more than just 'is about' or 'relates to'. The relationship is quite specific in that the subject pages are always WP+ ones. That may be useful in ways that are not obvious to me right now. Also, there's another property with the same name and a ":" after it used on a few pages. It occurs when the object is a category and is clearly a function of the WpPage template code that specifies the property. That probably needs fixing first --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 19:57, 19 December 2013 (GMT) | ||
Latest revision as of 19:57, 19 December 2013
Proposal to Replace
I wonder whether this property can be replaced by a new, non namespace-specific one, e.g. "relates to" (or possibly the existing is about)? Robin (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2013 (GMT)
- I've thought about it for a while and cannot decide. I'm bothered about missing something because, as currently used it is more than just 'is about' or 'relates to'. The relationship is quite specific in that the subject pages are always WP+ ones. That may be useful in ways that are not obvious to me right now. Also, there's another property with the same name and a ":" after it used on a few pages. It occurs when the object is a category and is clearly a function of the WpPage template code that specifies the property. That probably needs fixing first --Peter P (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2013 (GMT)
