Template talk:C

Please revert to January 24 verison! You must be able to highlight to read censored text! SEE? It took you that long to read this! And, if the message is too long, a little blurb can't cover the full length of the message, and you can not read everything you stupid assh...Aido2002 01:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, you wanna say that to my face? We need to stop using same-text-on-same-color tricks. The alternative is to delete this template. --Splaka 05:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

See, Splaka, the entire joke of an article like Freedom of Expression is NOT that it is censored to look good. Just making huge black blocks around text is somewhat funny, but not very good. However, the real humor lies in reading the actual text, uncensored. Thus, you can see just how the cabal altered it to suit their own needs, etc etc. Hoewver, requiring someone to click "edit" at the top of the page, and then read the article in the rapy little text box, is in no way funny. At all. 24.145.222.85 20:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And also: The alternative isn't to delete the template. Even if it is highlightable, it's pretty hard to type in <span style= "background: black"> before the text and </span> after it. That's pretty hard. Now, if you could just put in {{C|whatever}}, then the world would be happy. 24.145.222.85 20:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NO, the "world" would not be happy. One of the likely reasons we are not listed on google is because of crap like that. They hate same-color on same-color text. Hence the edit to (and probably eventual deprecation of) this template. So, the alternative is to delete the template. --Splaka 20:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

But do we actually know that, or are we making assumptions? Has anyone actually tried contacting google to find out what the crap their deal is? Furthermore, deleting this template and any same-on-same text completely kills the Freedom of Expression joke. Completely. If they have removed Uncyc because of this, then it's almost certainly a clerical error, as the site contains vast quantities of text that does not conform to the "offending pattern". Editing and removing templates is not the solution, writing a letter or getting to the bottom of the mystery is a far better solution. --epynephrin 21:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a very strong possibility, and this is an experiment to see if removing the offending style works. Template:C is by far the main offender. The (possibly temporary) loss of one joke page compared to google ranking is, shall we say, worth it. It could be, however that making a div non-visible or hidden has the same penalty weight with google. Several people are still waiting for replies: Forum:Google's "official" response, Forum:Google Banned Uncyclopedia?. --Splaka 21:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I was about to propose we make it readable via span tags, but I just realized the current template does that already. But still, are we really dithing the excellent original mehtod just to satisfy Google? --User:Nintendorulez 22:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I agree that getting hits on google is good, but I really don't think that the answer is to kill something. You know, there are more ways to get in touch with google than just receiving form-letter e-mails from their tech team. --epynephrin 00:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted it

Blah blah blah reverted the template blah blah blah google relisting blah blah something blah can always revert later blah blah. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Links still show up blue in here.

Is there a way to nullify that through the template? --User:Nintendorulez 23:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

{{{2}}}

Please change "background-color:black" to "background-color:{{{2}}}"  –              Smiddle             

CATEGORIES

Delete the god damn cats!, those are added also to articles where the template is transcluded. Heil! -- Emperor Walter Humala God save him!(God exists?) | wanna Talk? 03:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What happened?

Hey, what happened to this? now, to reveal this stuff, all I have to do is scroll my mouse over it. I liked it better the old way. Jedibob5 18:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Censored links to non-existent pages show up.

This is a censored link: Nihilism, and this is a censored link that leads nowhere: nowherelink. Note the link that leads nowhere is not completely censored. HoCkEy PUCK 22:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't make that link, then.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 13:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} In order to be nice to the newbies, can we make this fact explicit by either adding the sentence Red links will not be censored properly. below the example or by changing the example to read this text is censored Do not include red links in the text to be censored? (Feel free to adjust the wording as necessary.) Pentium5dot1 20:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This makes existing links blue:

 .censored{
     background-color:#000000;
     display:inline;
 }
 
 .censored a {
     color:#000000;
 }
 
 .censored a:visited {
     color:#000000;
 }
 
 .censored:hover a {
     background-color:transparent;
     color:blue;
 }
 
 .censored:hover {
     background-color:transparent;
     display:inline;
 }

It should also work with red links ... --WiMu 22:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

cp. MediaWiki talk:Common.css (there's a little CSS to solve that problem) --WiMu 21:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Documentation request

{{editprotected}}Per the discussion above, the example already reminds users not to put red links in the template parameter. It should also mention external links: lorem[1]ipsum. --Pentium5dot1 (semi-retired) t~^_^~c 01:19, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Working on it now.... 10+ years later.  Cassandra  (talk) 09:48am  February 1, 2021

How does this work?

Hello. Will like to ask, how does this exactly work? I thought of trying this out on another wiki.--Zhenkang123 (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)