In the event that the sub-pages for init8ial release/date do not exist, I think it should fall back to the old behaviour of the "released" label. As it stands, if you look at e.g. https://doomwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Doom&oldid=159942 , the initial date is missing because it ignores those labels.
In fact why parameterize the initial release/version by sub-page anyway? It's a static piece of info, once known it isn't going to change. This is over-engineered for that field IMHO. -- Shambler (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2018 (CST)
- Very good point. I think I could fix the markup, but better to avoid the overhead altogether, especially since this is a topic known to attract non-regular editors. Ryan W (living fossil) 08:09, 24 February 2018 (CST)
- I believe the only reason the initial data/version were put on subpages was to copy-paste what was done for the latest date and version without thinking about why these fields were externalized in the first place (keeping separate pages, such as the source port's own page and the "comparison" table page, in sync). I agree that static data should not be subject to the same maintenance issue as they should remain in sync by virtue of never changing. --Gez (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2018 (CST)
This template has been revised. I will wait for links to update before removing the orphaned article subpages. Anyone is free to check for information "bleeding" from the previous documentation draft here, as well as HTML comments in the port skeleton template. Ryan W (living fossil) 21:58, 18 March 2018 (CDT)