Template talk:Anchor2

Use of a symbol...

Why confiscate the section (§) symbol for use with something that has little to nothing to do with its actual usage for most of the planet?? Isn't there an "anchor" symbol you could use for this template instead ??? George Orwell III (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine why such a symbol has been used.... I found the template into it.source, so I used it. I remember, I was a beginner when I met it first, and its simple code was something like aramaic... so I was so busy to study its code, that I had no energy to discuss its name. ;-) Then I wrote it:template:§§, a cross-link, then it:Template:Nota, that is a double cross link, since it runs both in Page and Ns0 namespaces when transcluded :-).

I'm going deeper into en.source philosophy, I like it; you like simple names for simple (or, apparently simple) tasks, and another name is absolutely needed for this template, if useful. --Alex brollo (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no issue with what the template does (or will do) on my part. I only question the use of this particular symbol since it literally translates as "section" - not "anchor". It's use is basically for legal citations so, in my view at least, there will be much confusion if it is used for something other than what it is meant to symbolize. George Orwell III (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please rename it accordingly to en.source uses and conventions! Thanks! --Alex brollo (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well that should be done with your input. Do wish to associate this template in the same vein as the traditional anchor ( {{anchor+}} ) or ( {{anchor2}} ) or more stand-alone-ish ( {{inviso-anchor}} ), ( {{in-anch}} ) or maybe even ( {{inach}} )? Remember, one can also shortcut any number of derivatives to a main template as well. George Orwell III (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting - no reply; just further implementation. George Orwell III (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)