Template talk:Nopage

I've been doing a little research into the DISPLAYTITLE tag, and possibly we either don't have MediaWiki 1.7, or someone with deep level access needs to activate it, possibly with "$wgAllowDisplayTitle." ThunderkatzHo! 10:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Interesting. We had it before, on RW 2.0, I remember using it (definitely post-1.0).  We must have lost it when Linus upgraded MW.  Should one of us ask Trent (who seems to be very active lately) to type what you said in some magic window somewhere?  ħ uman  14:47, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Wossit do? 15:01, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * It replaces the displayed title of a page with specified text. You used to use it on your user page, didn't you?  I know I did...  ħ uman  15:07, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * It would be especially cool for this template, since we can then make the title read "Editing (pagename)", with any luck.  ħ uman  15:08, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * You're right. Don't it work now? I'd forgotten all about it - ('twasn't I who put it on my page, some kind soul did it to me!) 15:19, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Trent made it work again, yay!  ħ uman  17:44, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Still needs to be left-aligned. 17:47, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I dunno, I like centered. Although, what it really needs is for the "boxes" to be dynamically sized to fill the screen width, with the other stuff where it belongs (mostly left aligned).  I just don't want to do all that work to make it look almost just right (there are also some things from people's prefs we can't do, like I have the javascript edit bar turned off, and people can customize how many rows are in the edit box...).  ħ uman  18:14, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Is there a way we can make it link directly to editing something? Or maybe a fake "you've been blocked so you can't edit this" message? Those are fun. 18:17, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I think those would both be harder to fake well. The editing one would end up with the "wrong" title; and the block message usually has the "source" to look at, we'd have to fake that.  Although, the block idea is a good one, even if not executed perfectly.  Tell you what, let's work that up in a sandbox and see if we can put the two versions in choose/option tags?  ħ uman  18:33, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * What does a block message look like here, anyway? Is it somewhere in the Mediawiki namespace? 18:40, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Try editing in the next five minutes and you'll see ;) And, yes, it's at MW, lemme go transclude it to here.  ħ uman  20:05, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

And I think it appears centered. The gibberish $ things are obviously arguments stored that describe the block.  ħ uman  20:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * It doesn't appear centered. We could probably just replace those arguments, or rephrase the text so they aren't needed. 20:11, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Here is the source, edited a bit already as you suggest:

Oh noes! You have been blocked. (Or, you forgot to log in/got timed out again!)

You were blocked by YOMAMA. The reason given for your block is FUCK OFF AND DIE. We don't care apologize for any inconvenience caused.

Your block time has been calculated using either RationalWiki's fibonacci sequence blocking policy or some random number of digits of pi, taking into account the nature of your transgression.

If you believe the block was too long or unjustified, then please try contacting SOMEONE WHO CARES or another |administrator.

You cannot use the "email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences.

Further attempts at editing may result in Andrew Schlafly, Esquire reporting you to teh FBI!!!

I didn't really put much thought into my replacements for the arguments ;) I also added a lame joke because of recent WIGOCP history.  ħ uman  20:59, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I absolutely will not remind everyone that this was my idea. That would be petty... 01:25, 5 September 2008 (EDT)