Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 26

October 26

Template:Archimedes, Watch Out!

Template:Archimedes, Watch Out! (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An infobox that links to nothing. There is no article at Archimedes, Watch Out! (CSD A7), and the only other link is external. [flaminglawyer] 07:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Other use

Template:Other use (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It has the same functionality with {{About}} apart from the fact it uses named parameters. Named parameters are rather unusual for DABlinks. "About" does the same job and it's better coded and well-established with more than 70k transclusions. Magioladitis (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Merge adding optional named parameters to {{about}} would be good, since you can then specify things. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• The transclusion count is low enough here that a subst-and-delete would be better than having to permanently maintain legacy code which evidently hasn't seen anywhere near the adoption levels of the templates which use anonymous params. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it is a good idea that all templates should have the option of using named parameters. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment We can save the template in some subpage but I don't see the reason to use named parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply (1) basic programming, parameters should not be called A, B, C etc, as sensible names would lead to readable code. By providing optional named versions of the parameters, function can be discerned more readily from properly named parameters (2) ordering of parameters could be made clearer if placed in a different order from default through use of named parameters. 76.66.199.238 (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Merge. I agree. --Kumioko (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Disamb1

Template:Disamb1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, I'm replacing it now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep it's been deprecated for two days. And it is still documented (Wikipedia:Template messages/General) , aside from that, it should be made into a substitution template. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. We have a better template for this job. "Still documented" isn't a good argument. We can just remove it from documentation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment if deprecating is the same as deletion, (as this is considering the nomination for deletion occurs two days after deprecation), why do we allow deprecation at all? 76.66.196.13 (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Wait and see if the new template catches on? [flaminglawyer] 07:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)