Template talk:en-infl-reg-vowel-e

Substitution policy on inflection templates

Do we have a policy regarding whether to subst: inflection templates? Rodasmith 22:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A standing edit war exists about the inflection templates. Subst:ing them would escalate the problem. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Template documentation

A month or two ago, I started including template documentation inside "noinclude" sections of the template. I am no longer convinced this is the best way to go, as it makes the server work overtime for each instance the template is used. Is there active discussion about this practice anywhere that I am unaware of? --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I had created documentation here [1] and on Template talk:en-verb [2], ala the standard template documentation style at Wikipedia, but my Wikipedia-style template documentation table of contents formatting was reverted [3]. Subsequent conversation informed me that Wiktionary template documentation belongs in <noinclude/> tags on the main template page.[4] So, I moved my documentation from the talk pages as recommended. Please let me know if there is a policy on where to put template documentation. Rodasmith 17:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am certain there is no policy. I doubt there is consensus on what our current practice should be. I guess this belongs {sigh} in the Beer Parlour as a new discussion topic. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Those reverts look troublesome. I'll ask other sysops if they agree that User:V-ball should be blocked. As a dictionary, we have built-in redundancy nearly everywhere. And the TOC directives are a no-no. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• There's absolutely no reason for blocking here; from what I've seen before, V-ball appears to be a well-intended person.
• I don't think it matters where the documentation is. If it proves to be a load on the servers, then we'll simply have to move them to talk pages. That's no big deal, is it? — Vildricianus 17:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As a dictonary, we are redundant in many ways - nearly as a rule. In my short history here at en.wikt: there has been a constant demand for more, better and more clearly organized template documentation. The notion that wholesale removal of helpful information is itself somehow helpful is the opposite of what I've learned about wiki. So, the tremendous philosophical chasm between me and this so-called "well-intentioned" contributor may have caused me to over-react.

"Template documentation style" needs a calm, neutral discussion on WT:BP. For my part, I think I've possibly blown the "calm" and "neutral" aspects, so I'll try to stay out of it, as long as 1) server performance is discussed, 2) my previous efforts/experiments aren't misrepresented. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, bring it on then. I don't see any problems here, but that'll be because I've no idea of previous discussions on this. — Vildricianus 18:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Rodasmith reworked this as an inclusion on a subpage, but I've been bold and undone that. There is now Wiktionary talk:Template documentation for discussion, with this talk page in its original state. — Vildricianus 11:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)