+[[!tag patch plugins/inline patch/core]]
+
The `IkiWiki::pagetitle` function does not respect title changes via `meta.title`. It really should, so that links rendered with `htmllink` get the proper title in the link text.
--[[madduck]]
----
It is possible to set a Page-Title in the meta-plugin, but that one isn't
-reused in parentlinks. This [[patch]] may fix it.
+reused in parentlinks. This patch may fix it.
<ul>
<li> I give pagetitle the full path to a page.
>
>> It was actually more complicated than expected. A working prototype is
>> now in my `meta` branch, see my userpage for the up-to-date url.
->> Thus tagging [[patch]]. --[[intrigeri]]
+>> Thus tagging patch. --[[intrigeri]]
>>
>>> Joey, please consider merging my `meta` branch. --[[intrigeri]]
> preference goes the other way, perhaps a `\[[!meta longtitle=""]]` could take
> precedence when generating the `<title>` and the title that comes after the
> parentlinks. --[[smcv]]
+
+>> I think you've convinced me. (I had always had some doubt in my mind as
+>> to whether using titles in all these other places would make sense.)
+>>
+>> Instead of meta abbrev, you could have a meta pagename that
+>> overrides the page name displayed everywhere (in turn overridden by
+>> meta title iff the page's title is being displayed). But is this complexity
+>> needed? We have meta redir, so if you want to change the name of a page,
+>> you can just rename it, and put in a stub redirection page so links
+>> still work.
+>>
+>> This leaves the [[plugins/contrib/po]] plugin, which really does need
+>> a way to change the displayed page name everywhere, and at least a
+>> subset of the changes in the meta branch are needed to support that.
+>>
+>> (This would also get around my concern about inter-page dependency
+>> handling, since po contains a workaround for that, and it's probably
+>> acceptable to use potentially slow methods to handle this case.)
+>> --[[Joey]]
+
+>>> I'm glad to implement whatever decision we'll make, but I don't
+>>> clearly understand what this discussion's conclusion is. It seems
+>>> like we agree at least on one point: meta page titles shall not be
+>>> displayed all over the place by default; I have therefore disabled
+>>> `meta_overrides_page_title` by default in my `meta` branch.
+>>>
+>>> My next question is then: do we only want to satisfy the `po`
+>>> plugin needs? Or do we want to allow people who want this, such as
+>>> [[madduck]], to turn on a config switch so that meta page titles
+>>> are displayed as wikilinks titles? In the latter case, what level
+>>> of configurability do we want? I can think of a quite inelegant
+>>> way to implement full configurability, and provide a configuration
+>>> switch for every place where links are displayed, such as
+>>> wikilinks, parentlinks, etc., but I don't think the added bonus is
+>>> worth the complexity of it.
+>>>
+>>> I think we can roughly split the needs into three categories:
+>>>
+>>> 1. never display any modified page title in links; this is the
+>>> current behaviour, and we should keep it as the default one
+>>> 2. display modified page titles only at well chosen places; that
+>>> could be "manual" wikilinks, I mean those generated by the
+>>> `link`, `camelcase` & al. plugins, the recentchanges page, and
+>>> maybe a few other places; keep the usual pagename-based title
+>>> for every other link, such as the parentlinks ones.
+>>> The inter-page dependency problem remains, though. As a first
+>>> step, I'm in favour of the "slow, but correct" implementation,
+>>> with a big warning stating that enabling this option can make
+>>> a wiki really sluggish; if someone really wants this to work
+>>> fast, he/she'll implement a clever dependency handler :)
+>>> 3. display modified page titles all over the place; IMHO, we
+>>> should implement only the bits needed so that the `po` plugin
+>>> can set this up, rather than provide this as
+>>> a user-configurable option.
+>>>
+>>> So my question is: do we want to implement the #2 case, or not?
+>>> I propose myself to only implement #1 and #3 to start with, but do
+>>> it in a way that leaves room for #2.
+>>>
+>>> --[[intrigeri]]
+>>>
+>>>> I agree, we should concentrate on getting just enough functionality
+>>>> for the po plugin, because I want to merge the po plugin soon.
+>>>> If #2 gets tackled later, we will certianly have all kinds of fun.
+>>>> no matter what is done for the po plugin. --[[Joey]]