Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Template consolidation

I've been meaning to bring this up for some time. I think we need to consolidate our templates. We have tons of them, many of which are never used, some which people don't know when to use, and several which mean essentially the same thing. I think we should get rid of some and try to more clearly define each one's purpose and when it should be used:

So to start off: expansion templates:


All of these templates say, in one way or another, than an article needs to be expanded.

I'm not saying we should merge all those these, but perhaps some. Stubs... well, the stub templates may need reworking, but we can get to that later. But the stub tag is obviously essentially, even though it is frequently misunderstood. A stub is not a short article; it is an article which only contains the bare essential information on its subject. But what about those other templates? Also, Jorrel is working on another template (see the 3rd template, still a WIP), which I rather like, that could perhaps replace {{Doomed}} or become a more specific version of it.

Thoughts? -- Ozzel 20:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • For one, I would like to see {{expandsect}} wookified and more widely used instead of {{expansion}} in individual sections, mainly because of the size of the latter. -- Ozzel 20:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Use the Expandsect tag for sections and the Expand tag for an entire article. -Fnlayson 20:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I too agree. Also, about my try, it would be a bit more specific than the Doomed template. That was its intention. (While you're looking at it, will someone find me a good picture of that line?) Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 21:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary templates?Edit

Here is my personal list of templates we don't need.

  • I'm sure some will disagree with some of these picks, but that's what this page is for- to discuss what we want to keep. Atarumaster88 20:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Some of those I agree with, but some not. Template:Imagequality is one I'm glad we made, because unlike Template:Cleanup-image which implies the image just needs some touching up, this one says that the file is beyond repair and needs a new version completely. Also, I like the separate future product templates, mainly because of the categories. {{conjecturecanon}}, though? That one's pointless. And I agree about the ones that are redundant because of {{Confirm}}. -- Ozzel 20:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I think the future product one is fine. Eliminate the others, no need to be that specific. Chack Jadson 00:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I like More Sources. Sources means that it needs to have sources added. More Sources means that, yes, we can see the sources there, but we know it has more appearances and they need to be added. Otherwise, some anon will see Sources on the page, see that it has sources listed, and take it off. Havac 03:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Yeah, More Sources is good. Sources-date has already been merged to Sources, and is currently a redirect. Same with Cleanup-date. The various Future Products templates are good, because they automatically categorize the articles. Category:Future comics is full enough; if we merged them all into one category, it would be too big. Testspoiler isn't actually used, it was just created as an idea. Totallydisputed combines NPOV and Factual accuracy, which I don't think we really need. Sectfact is a lot less intrusive and more section-oriented than the Disputed tag. Copyediting encompasses more than just spelling; it includes style, grammar, and overall readability. Conjecturecanon is pointless, as is Nonsense. If it's really patent nonsense, any admin who sees. the Delete tag would be able to see that for themselves. -LtNOWIS 06:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
            • I pretty much agree with NOWIS about what we can lose and what we should keep. In particular, we must keep Copyedit; sometimes it seems that at least 75% of what I do is correcting bad style in addition to grammar and spelling. Gonk (Gonk!) 12:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Actually, after thinknig about it, I agree with LtNOWIS (about everything he listed). Chack Jadson 13:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Source templatesEdit

I've been confused by this before and brought it up as a CT a while back. These are the source templates we have and a breakdown of basically what they say:

  • {{confirm}}- Has sources, but they (or information supposedly from them) may not be correct.
  • {{verify}}- Has no sources or appearances
  • {{sources}}- May or may not have sources. Either way, it needs new ones or more of them. (Personally I think this is worded badly on the template itself because next on the list we have...)
  • {{more sources}}- Which implies that the article has at least one source, but needs more.

If we want to keep {{more sources}}, I think that {{sources}} should be merged into {{verify}}. Basically my problem is that {{sources}} and {{verify}} are currently used interchangeably by the community, but {{more sources}} and {{sources}} are worded so that if they were used correctly (i.e. for the purpose for which they actually state they exist), they would be interchangeable. Anybody else think that's redundant? Wildyoda 18:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • To me {{moresources}} can cover {{sources}}. Either way both aren't needed. More general wording would help. But I can't think of any suggestions at the moment. -Fnlayson 04:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fresh commentsEdit

  • We really need to discuss this some more. jSarek 07:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm working on consolidating all of the {{future product}} templates. Now you can do {{Future product|comic}} and it will place it in the correct category - Category:Future comics - for you. If you don't assign anything for the parameter (or assign an incorrect keyword), it will just place the article in Category:Future products. —Xwing328(Talk) 21:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Nice. Templates should all have that ability to replace text with a pipe if need be. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.