Template talk:notself

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

This template is redundant to {{l-self}}... —CodeCat 18:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

They do two different things. l-self boldfaces a self-link and not another link; notself boldfaces neither. (And notself is in use.) Keep.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've orphaned it now. It was used in only two places: in {{soplink}}, which should have used {{l}} instead, and in {{Latin variations}}, which I orphaned in favour of {{list|en|varieties of Latin}}. —CodeCat 13:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Should have used {{l}}?? Why? In any event, see my recent edit to {{soplink}}.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edit didn't work. It is still not substable. And yes, should have, because in its original state it completely ignored the lang= parameter that the documentation mentioned. I just added that parameter, using {{l}}, so that it linked to the right section. I did not make {{l}} itself substable, because it isn't meant to be substituted. —CodeCat 17:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction: it's now substable.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It works better now, but {{subst:soplink|bake|cookies}} results in [[bake|bake]] [[cookies|cookies]], which is less desirable than {{l|en|bake}} {{l|en|cookies}} or [[bake]] [[cookies]]... —CodeCat 17:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, did your edit to {{soplink}} effect a change in boldfacing in entries? (I didn't check.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

(You'll pardon me, I hope, for being very leery of (even established) editors who make presumably well-meaning edits to templates, without regard for the resultant drastic change in how entries are displayed.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it didn't change anything in boldfacing because I replaced {{notself}} with {{l}}, not {{l-self}}. My reasoning was that if a non-English term, say hypothetically land, is defined as {{soplink|open|land}} but there is no open land entry, then we would want the word 'land' to link back to the English section on that page, we wouldn't want it to be unlinked. —CodeCat 17:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay, then I'll revert my reversion. Thanks for the explanation. Note that I still say to keep the template nominated for deletion: AFAICT the reason I gave above applies still.​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

And I've now checked all transclusions of {{soplink}} to make sure they use lang= or link to English words: this was necessary now in light of your (CodeCat's) change to that template (which I just reverted to). I note that nobody did this when you (CodeCat) first made said change. Cf. my comment, just above, of 17:39, July 15th. (Sigh.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I did actually check all the transclusions. There aren't that many. —CodeCat 08:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Checking doesn't help if the entries aren't edited in light of the template edit. One entry needed it. I don't mean to sound snide, but this has been a problem over and over again with template edits.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

{{l-self}} was created by CodeCat a few days ago. Clearly {{notself}} wasn't redundant until CodeCat created it. I think either CodeCat should've modified {{notself}}, or if not possible, create a separate template if needed for a separate function. So if they do have separate functions, keep 'em separate. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

When I made it, I wasn't aware there was already another template. I specifically intended it to be used in inflection tables and such, where it's probably more useful to show bold text than to display a link to the language section the table already is in. The bold part wasn't a specific idea... it was based on older inflection tables that used raw links rather than {{l}}, so that they already produced bold text. I just combined that idea with the usefulness of linking to a language section like {{l}} does. Another advantage to having bold text as opposed to regular text is that many inflection tables use the inflection-table CSS class, which displays red links in black instead, and so a regular non-link would be indistinguishable from missing entries in that case unless you hovered the mouse over it. —CodeCat 19:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Looks Speediable to me. But actually kept. --ElisaVan (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)