Template talk:format - Revision history

It's dot com: /* Delete format template */ reply

It's dot com — Fri, 03 Feb 2023 06:18:07 GMT

Delete format template: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:18, 3 February 2023
Line 11:		Line 11:
	:As the creator of the template I would disagree with the "easier to understand" argument. Well, it was the reason why I adapted the template so I'm a little biased. I generally find CSS tags harder to parse in my head than wiki code, especially when the two are mixed together. Having become more accustomed to templates (and their vertical pipes) I didn't think the abstraction is that big of a hurdle: commonly used tags for font size, shadow and padding were abstracted into shorter names, while (like its originating template) color and background color use the first two default parameters. I reasoned that the compactness would make it easier to read the source as well as write new fancy text.		:As the creator of the template I would disagree with the "easier to understand" argument. Well, it was the reason why I adapted the template so I'm a little biased. I generally find CSS tags harder to parse in my head than wiki code, especially when the two are mixed together. Having become more accustomed to templates (and their vertical pipes) I didn't think the abstraction is that big of a hurdle: commonly used tags for font size, shadow and padding were abstracted into shorter names, while (like its originating template) color and background color use the first two default parameters. I reasoned that the compactness would make it easier to read the source as well as write new fancy text.
	:I also waited almost a week before making changes beyond the first set from the link above, but no one had said anything until now. I was a bit taken aback by the sudden push-back. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 04:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)		:I also waited almost a week before making changes beyond the first set from the link above, but no one had said anything until now. I was a bit taken aback by the sudden push-back. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 04:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
		+	::The abstraction is easier only if you actually know the template. Otherwise it's a layer you have to get past. I don't think it makes it easier to read in the code. All that said, I think my main problem is that the little bit of shortening aside, it doesn't really simplify anything. It's just a collection of one-for-one substitutions. As for the timing, I've been thinking about it ever since the <code>format</code> version was made and it just happened that something pushed me to bring it up now. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 06:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Stux: /* Delete format template */ reply

Stux — Fri, 03 Feb 2023 04:54:38 GMT

Delete format template: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:54, 3 February 2023
Line 9:		Line 9:
	== Delete format template ==		== Delete format template ==
	I don't see the purpose of the <code>format</code> version of this template. I think changes {{p\|l=http://hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Happy_20th_Trogday!&diff=824026&oldid=824015 like this}} obfuscate the code by hiding everything behind vertical pipes and single letters, making it harder to come back later and figure out what it does. The plain tags are way easier to understand. What's the selling point here? — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 04:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)		I don't see the purpose of the <code>format</code> version of this template. I think changes {{p\|l=http://hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Happy_20th_Trogday!&diff=824026&oldid=824015 like this}} obfuscate the code by hiding everything behind vertical pipes and single letters, making it harder to come back later and figure out what it does. The plain tags are way easier to understand. What's the selling point here? — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 04:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
		+	:As the creator of the template I would disagree with the "easier to understand" argument. Well, it was the reason why I adapted the template so I'm a little biased. I generally find CSS tags harder to parse in my head than wiki code, especially when the two are mixed together. Having become more accustomed to templates (and their vertical pipes) I didn't think the abstraction is that big of a hurdle: commonly used tags for font size, shadow and padding were abstracted into shorter names, while (like its originating template) color and background color use the first two default parameters. I reasoned that the compactness would make it easier to read the source as well as write new fancy text.
		+	:I also waited almost a week before making changes beyond the first set from the link above, but no one had said anything until now. I was a bit taken aback by the sudden push-back. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 04:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It's dot com: I don't see the purpose of the format version of this template

It's dot com — Fri, 03 Feb 2023 04:06:49 GMT

I don't see the purpose of the format version of this template

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:06, 3 February 2023
Line 6:		Line 6:
	I don't see any reason why this template is needed. It isn't [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:colors\|used]] at all and, like Stux said above, it seems to just be copied from the Wikipedia template. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 01:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)		I don't see any reason why this template is needed. It isn't [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:colors\|used]] at all and, like Stux said above, it seems to just be copied from the Wikipedia template. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 01:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I'm '''neutral, leaning towards delete'''. The template page itself could use a lot less blatant plagiarism. I blame it's non-existent use on lack of awareness, but even then I can't think of any use for it. Especially since it doesn't display links the foreground color. Now if it did that, it'd be worth keeping. Maybe an <code>!important</code> in the style attribute would do it? {{User:Soiled Bargains/sig}} 02:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)		::I'm '''neutral, leaning towards delete'''. The template page itself could use a lot less blatant plagiarism. I blame it's non-existent use on lack of awareness, but even then I can't think of any use for it. Especially since it doesn't display links the foreground color. Now if it did that, it'd be worth keeping. Maybe an <code>!important</code> in the style attribute would do it? {{User:Soiled Bargains/sig}} 02:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Delete format template ==
		+	I don't see the purpose of the <code>format</code> version of this template. I think changes {{p\|l=http://hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Happy_20th_Trogday!&diff=824026&oldid=824015 like this}} obfuscate the code by hiding everything behind vertical pipes and single letters, making it harder to come back later and figure out what it does. The plain tags are way easier to understand. What's the selling point here? — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 04:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Stux: moved Template talk:colors to Template talk:format: Rename for more general-purpose use.

Stux — Mon, 16 Jan 2023 14:50:07 GMT

moved Template talk:colors to Template talk:format: Rename for more general-purpose use.

← Older revision

Revision as of 14:50, 16 January 2023

Soiled Bargains: /* Keep? */ Reply.

Soiled Bargains — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 02:06:42 GMT

Keep?: Reply.

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:06, 12 January 2011
Line 5:		Line 5:

	I don't see any reason why this template is needed. It isn't [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:colors\|used]] at all and, like Stux said above, it seems to just be copied from the Wikipedia template. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 01:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)		I don't see any reason why this template is needed. It isn't [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:colors\|used]] at all and, like Stux said above, it seems to just be copied from the Wikipedia template. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 01:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
		+	::I'm '''neutral, leaning towards delete'''. The template page itself could use a lot less blatant plagiarism. I blame it's non-existent use on lack of awareness, but even then I can't think of any use for it. Especially since it doesn't display links the foreground color. Now if it did that, it'd be worth keeping. Maybe an <code>!important</code> in the style attribute would do it? {{User:Soiled Bargains/sig}} 02:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Homestar-Winner: /**/Keep?

Homestar-Winner — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:09:42 GMT

: Keep?

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:09, 28 February 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Purpose? ==		== Purpose? ==
	This seems to be taken from the english wikipedia, and it hasn't been used for anything. I'm not one to say this often, but: is it necessary? --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 03:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)		This seems to be taken from the english wikipedia, and it hasn't been used for anything. I'm not one to say this often, but: is it necessary? --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 03:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Keep? ==
		+
		+	I don't see any reason why this template is needed. It isn't [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:colors\|used]] at all and, like Stux said above, it seems to just be copied from the Wikipedia template. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 01:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Stux: Purpose?

Stux — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:12:06 GMT

Purpose?

New page

== Purpose? ==
This seems to be taken from the english wikipedia, and it hasn't been used for anything. I'm not one to say this often, but: is it necessary? --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 03:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)