Template talk:R:Zaicz 2006

I changed this so that it's possible to refer to the 2nd edition. I don't know if this was the best way to do it, I'm learning, so I'm open for suggestions, but this seems to work. It only refers to PAGENAME by default for the 2nd edition because it might point to the wrong entry for some of the old transclusions otherwise. I'm not sure how best to implement the link to the pdf of the 1st edition, if at all. —caoimhinoc (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

, any thoughts? Adam78 (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to link to the PDF only if the first edition is referred to, since the PDF contains the 1st edition. (Unfortunately no electronic version of the 2nd edition is available. Maybe later, who knows.)
 * I think it's misleading to highlight a particular entry in the link description, as it's not possible to link to that specific section of the PDF; the entire document is linked anyway.
 * I think it's misleading to highlight a particular entry in the link description, as it's not possible to link to that specific section of the PDF; the entire document is linked anyway.
 * I agree that it's misleading. But I'm not for leaving it out, because the idea of adding the 2nd edition was to make more information available, not less. Better would be to include it, but have it clearly labeled as the full pdf of the 1st edition. However I couldn't find an easy way to do that. —caoimhinoc (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to have two different templates for the two editions. The name of the current template is Zaicz 2006, so we shouldn't mix it with the 2021 second edition. It's too confusing. Panda10 (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I agree; I've created a new template. : I'm sorry. Next time let's discuss suggestions in advance if possible. Adam78 (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. This way is fine too. −caoimhinoc (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Would it be okay to delete the documentation page? Panda10 (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Why? If there's a problem with it maybe update it? I wouldn't mind doing it. When I was starting off I found documentation pages useful. They exist for a reason. —caoimhinoc (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * No, there is no problem with the documentation. It was a misunderstanding on my part. I did make some minor updates, though. Thanks. Panda10 (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, CC's updates did definitely have its merits, such as having "pages" for multiple pages, so it would be good to keep those that are still applicable, that is, extract and incorporate them into the current version, I suppose. (I haven't checked the most recent updates though.) Adam78 (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)