Template talk:time

See the ParserFunctions documentation at meta for details on this parser function.

=Old talk about deleting a template with this name=

From Requests for deletion
I removed the visible tag (time) from the template (these tags are intended to indicate subject specific usage; this case resembles the one where somebody decided to tag definitions of river names with (river)), which leaves it doing no more that categorising into Category:Time which should be done directly. Ncik 14:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The template was created by me, and in many cases I did use the "Category:Time" direct listing. However, a number of time-related words have multiple meanings, only some of which pertain to a sense of time. The other meanings do not.  For this reason, I created the tag, so that it would be clear which sense belonged in the time category.  I admit that there may be a few cases where I used the tag unnecessarily, but was trying to quickly brainstorm which words belonged in the hideously underpopulated Time category. --EncycloPetey 14:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, these tags are not to be used to discriminate between different meanings (which is already done by the definition itself). Instead, they indicate subject specific usage. Ncik 14:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's where I become uncertain on this issue. Does time-specific qualify as subject specific? At last some of these terms have very specific technical definitions rooted in physics and/or astronomy. I suppose the question comes down to how beneficial and widespread the use of the template could be. WhenI began categorizing the Time terms, I had no sense of how many terms I'd find, so the Template was done blind. I'm not emotionally attached to the Template, but I do want to ensure that the Time Category remains populated with terms. I began the process of categorization when I noted that the Category had only a single term in it. --EncycloPetey 20:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely nothing wrong with categorising terms into the category, and I encourage you to continue with that. Just change the way of doing it. "Time" is not a subject area. I've heard of people being professionals in architecture, medicine, geophysics, tennis, carpentry, etc., but not in "time". Ncik 19:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Which sense it pertains to, that's a problem in general with categories. I'd have to agree, time is not a subject area. Davilla 13:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Category inclusions can be added at the beginning of a sense. That's what I do when appropriate. Ncik 01:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)