Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 18
October 18
- 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)
- Template:PROFUNC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unnecessary navbox, used only on a single page, as a laundry list of possibly maybe kind of related things. →ROUX ₪ 18:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Angola municipalities templates
- Template:Municipalities of Bengo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Municipalities of Cuanza Norte (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Municipalities of Malanje (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
These templates became deprecated to {{Municipalities of Angola}} over a year ago. A bunch of sister-templates were deleted at the time the new one was created but these got missed, it seems. All are orphaned. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
This template contains hardly any notable people and is therefore not required. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Template:Pruned (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I'm not sure what to do with this template--it's a cleanup-style template that is applied after fixes are done to an article. It seems like it would be better to have some HTML comment(s) in the body of the article and possibly some banner like this on the talk even better: an editnotice, but do we really want to tell readers that this article used to have problems? Are we going to make templates that read "this article used to lack sources" or "this article formerly used bare links in its references"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I really don't see the point. It's not highlighting an issue with the article, it's basically just saying that the article has been edited, which is something we can take as a given. PC78 (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. The point of the template is to save people from having to apply fixes again and again as well as to remind people that periodic pruning may be needed. This is especially the case with list articles which tend to gain items until maintenance becomes so difficult that the article ends up being deleted. Moreover, the problem with HTML comments, as suggested above, is that people tend not to read them while editing; this is especially so with lists, where people just skip down to the area where that can add a single bulleted item.
- Regarding the visibility of the template, it can be modified, such as by making it into an edit notice template (see Template talk:Pruned). Also it's use may also be restricted to articles where pruning was required by AfD, as was the case with List of fictional radio stations. Nonetheless, I feel the visibility has beneficial to the fictional radio list-article; looking at the history, we can see that user TomCat4680 added an item to the list and then removed it himself, presumably because he saw the template and realized that the item was not notable enough for it. —CodeHydro 16:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I have added a new parameter to the template, allowing people to specify the deletion discussion which caused the pruning (if applicable). I may also note that this template can be easily converted into an edit notice, so if people want to go in that direction then deletion would be ill-advised. In this case, it should be far easier to keep and modify than to delete and make from scratch anew, especially since the existing code accepts so many potentially helpful parameters. —CodeHydro 17:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Response If this is an editnotice, then that makes complete sense to me. It shouldn't be visible prior to editing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. Edit notices would be a great way of handling things like this. Pseudo-cleanup templates aren't. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Template is unneeded since it only it used in one article. ~ Richmond96 t • c 01:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
This template is not used by any pages. ~ Richmond96 t • c 00:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)