Template talk:nan-sample

And another. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Would it be simpler to say "all members of Category:Untranscluded templates?" SemperBlotto (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am worried that I am going to miss a preload, subst-only, work in progress, or just an interesting idea. After all, most of these have no documentation or are - ahem - "self-documenting". If folks would like to categorize or document a template in a way that indicated its current or potential value, then we could bypass RFDO. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well Category:Untranscluded templates ought to be redundant to Category:Templates that must be substituted, as substitute-only templates are used but not transcluded, while anything that is substitutable but not used really ought to be either used or deleted. As a rule, I say if potentially useful but unused, keep, as the one surefire way that useful template will never be used is if you delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Argh, this one's not well formatted it all. It could be turned into a subst: templates but I don't really see the point, it seems as easy just to write the stuff out by hand. Writing it out by hand gives more flexibility too. I'll abstain. But my instinct tells me this isn't used anyway, so wikifying it will have no benefit. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in an ideal, static world with perfect categorizers the two categories would have identical membership. It is because our world is not ideal or static and those willing to categorize are not knowledgeable enough to do so perfectly that there may be a need for other categories. Do actively used preload templates show up as transcluded? What about templates in development in Template, not User space? What about all of those orphan templates that are really worth keeping because of all the good ideas therein? DCDuring TALK 16:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "anything that is substitutable but not used really ought to be either used or deleted", note that some may be used substed even though usable and unused unsubsted. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * DCDuring, I'll take you literally:
 * "Do actively used preload templates show up as transcluded?"
 * No, like . Unless the template can either be used as a subst or a non-subst template
 * "What about templates in development in Template, not User space?"
 * Move 'em or delete 'em. That's what this page is for, such discussion
 * "What about all of those orphan templates that are really worth keeping because of all the good ideas therein?"
 * You've in effect answered yourself; if they are really worth keeping, keep 'em.
 * Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @msh: Where does one look to find whether a subst'ed template is in fact used?
 * @MG: How do we keep untranscluded, undocumented templates, not intended for preload or substing, so that they can be found and used? DCDuring TALK 17:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "Where does one look to find whether a subst'ed template is in fact used?", beats me. I suppose one could determine what its output would be when substed and see whether any edits have that output. (That wouldn't be completely conclusive, as people might be typing bar, hitting "Show changes", copy-pasting the result into the edit box, and editing it beyond recognition, but that seems like a fairly remote possibility barring some specific reason for thinking people do so with a given template.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Gonna be Deleted --ElisaVan (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)