Template talk:Interrupted

This template was considered for deletion on 2016 March 17. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Pun

This should be moved to "Girl:" space. Which would leave us with the delightful "Girl talk: Interrupted", just like in the playground when I was even younger. Splash - tk 22:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? MilesAgain (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's punning with Girl, Interrupted (his link for "Girl:" space) and Girl talk 69.49.44.11 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substing

Is it mandatory to WP:SUBST this template? If so: 1) why? 2) stating so explicitly, like on Template:Unsigned would be good. /skagedal ^... 10:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't see why it would be mandatory. As a matter of fact, we're trying to improve the text right now, and it wouldn't be so bad if that were reflected whereever this template has been used. — Sebastian 21:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 17#Template:Interrupted, this suggestion has been brought up again "for the same reason we require it of {{unsigned}} and other similar templates". However, if one reads Template_talk:Unsigned#Substing, it becomes clear that consistency with {{unsigned}} is not a reason for subst'ing. The primary reason that template was subst'ed has become obsolete, and the secondary has nothing to do with it being in Category:Username internal link templates, but is only a workaround for problems that arise from it being "a widely-used template", which does not apply here. Conversely, there are obvious disadvantages with subst'ing, such as that changes to this template will not get updated, which introduces internal inconsistency within the application of this template and counters one of the main reasons for using a template, that of standardization. — Sebastian 15:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improved wording

I never liked the word "interrupted", it always seemed curt to me. So here's a proposal that came up at WP:RD/L: Reword the text to "-- OriginalPoster - (continues after intermediary text below)". I will do that soonish if there's no objection. — Sebastian 21:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me the only meaning of intermediary is an agent. How about insertion? —Tamfang (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's better - I'll use that. — Sebastian 22:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parentheses

Is there a reason for the parentheses around the text “continues after insertion below,” after the non-parenthesized dash? They seem unnecessary to me. —Frungi (talk) 07:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve removed them. If anyone disagrees, please do discuss. —Frungi (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time entry in example

Should the example entry include "(5 years, 10 months, 6 days ago)"? That becomes outdated one day after it is posted, so I can't think why we'd want to encourage anyone to do that. —Salton Finneger (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that. My guess is that you have the Comments in Local Time gadget enabled in your preferences, and it mucks with the example. (If you don't want to see date differences anywhere, see the gadget documentation page I linked for information on changing its settings.)

I've made a change that I hope stops the gadget changing the example wikicode. It should still change the resulting text, to match what you see where this template is in real use. Is this looking alright for you now? – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 21:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Now it looks sensible. I still see the years/months/days ago in the example results of the code, but not in the suggesting coding to get those results. Thanks. —Salton Finneger (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]