Template talk:E number

This is not a context. -- Prince Kassad 19:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How so? It's used to indicate meaning in a specialize topic field.  Simple replacement with the category would not suffice.  Taking for example the entry at E100:, we'd have to replace:
 * with
 * in order to convey the same meaning. I could see an RFD or a mass RFV to eliminate all of the entries that use this if evidence for their use outside of ingredient lists on food packages can't be found. The same logic used for including them all would seem to imply that all zip codes (at least of the five-digit U.S. variety) would merit inclusion instead of just a few selected ones such as 90210 that have achieved broader usage. — Carolina wren discussió  21:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * in order to convey the same meaning. I could see an RFD or a mass RFV to eliminate all of the entries that use this if evidence for their use outside of ingredient lists on food packages can't be found. The same logic used for including them all would seem to imply that all zip codes (at least of the five-digit U.S. variety) would merit inclusion instead of just a few selected ones such as 90210 that have achieved broader usage. — Carolina wren discussió  21:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * in order to convey the same meaning. I could see an RFD or a mass RFV to eliminate all of the entries that use this if evidence for their use outside of ingredient lists on food packages can't be found. The same logic used for including them all would seem to imply that all zip codes (at least of the five-digit U.S. variety) would merit inclusion instead of just a few selected ones such as 90210 that have achieved broader usage. — Carolina wren discussió  21:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * in order to convey the same meaning. I could see an RFD or a mass RFV to eliminate all of the entries that use this if evidence for their use outside of ingredient lists on food packages can't be found. The same logic used for including them all would seem to imply that all zip codes (at least of the five-digit U.S. variety) would merit inclusion instead of just a few selected ones such as 90210 that have achieved broader usage. — Carolina wren discussió  21:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It does not restrict the usage to any particular field of science (which E number isn't), it does not signify the word as being used in a specific context, but it's used to categorize E numbers as such, which is not what context templates are for. -- Prince Kassad 21:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Then it’s what the context templates should be for, and the description of context templates should be changed to make them more reasonable. —Stephen 21:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. SemperBlotto 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * E numbers are, as far as I am aware, not utilized outside food labels. If that isn't a restricted usage to a single topic, what is?  The relevant category is  Topical context labels not Science topic context labels. — Carolina wren discussió  22:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note the Template:mammal which was deleted for the same reason. -- Prince Kassad 04:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not change the function of the template to display (food manufacture) or similar but still add the E-number category? I think that addresses the stated concern. DCDuring TALK 04:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I made the change. Revert if it is any way unsatisfactory in anyone's opinion. DCDuring TALK 04:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I renamed it as well, using "span" to create an anchor on this page. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A possible problem with renaming it is that it will be used on an entry for something other than an E-number and add that entry to Category:E numbers. That category has some value for now for making sure that we have a complete set of these, although other means for that would be available, eg, an Appendix that simply listed them. DCDuring TALK 15:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the category is also to be deleted, we should transwiki E number to support completeness checking and give a home for challenged unattestable ones, pending subsequent attestation. See BP on other unattested international standards body terms (SI). DCDuring TALK 16:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to move back. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved back, Mglovesfun (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Kept, seems okay now. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)